A const idiom + a different 'delete'

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:52:30 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > I think that's a total no-go because it would depend on program flow.
> 
> You are of course right, it's the silly thing of the day. The #undef works
> because it's not scoped.
> 
> >You kind hide the variable creation inside another scope if you want this
> >sort of behavior:<
> 
> You can't do that, you can't modify a const variable in that way :-)
> I will just keep two variables, one immutable and one mutable, as in the
> first example.
> 
> Later,
> bearophile

Hits self on head. It's the whole issue with not being able to break out the 
referent from the reference declaring it const. Bleh. I wish that we'd found a 
better solution to that.

In any case, then you should be able to use Rebindable to fix the problem. The 
other possibility is to just create a function to return the variable. That way, 
the const variable gets properly initialized rather than having to find a way to 
assign to it later.

- Jonathan M Davis