Inheritance of purity

[deadalnix]

Le 26/02/2012 13:17, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
> On Sunday, February 26, 2012 13:02:14 deadalnix wrote:
>> Thinking more about this, I did notice that I almost never do a const
>> and a non const version of the same function when coding (either the
>> functionality require const or it doesn't, so the const and non const
>> version will do something very different, which is confusing).
>>
>> Is it common ? If it is, it open the door to limiting override
>> possibilities when it come to const.non const, with the advantage of
>> being able to infer const in way more place than it is actually. I could
>> expand about that.
>
> It's common for some stuff. A classic example would be iterators (or ranges).
> If you have a const reference or pointer to a container, then the iterator (or
> range) that you get out of it must give you const access to the elements,
> whereas a non-const reference or pointer to a container should be able to give
> you an iterator or range with mutable access to the elements.
>

Can't inout help us for such an issue ?