From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-24 15:50:32
John Swartzentruber wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:48:02 +0200, Terje Slettebø wrote:
>
> >You must of course do what you think is best in this situation. I just hope
> >you got my point that if the calling code uses const, you don't have to look
> >at the function signature, to determine what variables may or may not be
> >changed by a function.
>
> void func1(Classname& obj)
> {
> func2(obj);
> func3(obj);
> func4(obj);
> }
>
> You are maintaining someone's code and know that one of these functions
> is changing obj. How do you know which? I think I understand your point
> about the calling code using const, but in this case, where the object
> is non-const within the function because func1() changes the object,
> would you call const_cast for the functions that do not change the
> object? I think that would clearly document what is going on, but it
> seems unlikely that anyone does this when passing non-const references
> to functions that take a const references for their parameters. Do you
> do this?
No, I personally don't do this. Do you think anyone would be more prone
to do this if in_out existed?
Noel
-- NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.