Let's not make invariants const

[deadalnix]

Le 05/08/2012 11:47, Simen Kjaeraas a écrit :
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:36:56 +0200, Jakob Ovrum <jakobovrum at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 3 August 2012 at 19:19:24 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> Does anyone else find this behavior too strict?
>>
>> Yes. Sounds like yet another case of forcing bitwise const on
>> something that should only be logically const.
>>
>> Please stop forcing bitwise constancy on everything. Not everything
>> needs to work with immutable, it should be opt-in (which in this case
>> could mean explicitly marking the invariant as const) for any type.
>
> I was about to argue that non-const invariants could not be called when
> calling const or immutable member functions, but then it hit me that
> those shouldn't be able to influence the state checked by the invariant
> anyway.
>

That is a very good point. Should invariant run on const/immutable 
method calls ?