How to break const

[Mehrdad]

On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 15:36:23 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Le 18/06/2012 17:28, Mehrdad a écrit :
>> On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 15:24:31 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>>> On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 15:21:36 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>>> So (**IMHO**) if that's really the case, we should really 
>>>>> spend some
>>>>> time fixing the /design/ of const before the 
>>>>> implementation...
>>>>
>>>> This is mostly about the design of object initialisation.
>>>>
>>>>> good idea or no?
>>>>
>>>> Certainly.
>>>
>>>
>>> My initial instinct would be to require a "const constructor" 
>>> in order
>>> for an object to be const-able, but I'm not sure if that 
>>> would work
>>> correctly or not..
>>
>> Come to think of it, that would play REALLY nicely with 
>> 'scope' -- a
>> reference to a non-const object can be escaped from a 'const
>> constructor' if and only if the reference is scope!
>>
>> Bingo! Does that work??
>
> Indeed, this should be scope for ctor (avoid partially 
> initialized object in 3rd party code) /dtor (avoid 
> resurrection, which is a real pain for any GC, and a very good 
> way to ends up with alive object in invalid state).

note: "for a CONST ctor", not just any ctor