From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 00:05:45
"Dan W." <danw_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:btaalu$flo$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> I just don't agree that, not
> having such semantics in existing smart pointers constitutes a violation
> of constness correctness, or that allowing const functions to call
> non-const, non-member functions does;
Ok
> for that amounts to saying that
> the working definition of const-correctness in the language is
> ill-formed.
AFAIK the language does not on its own have a definition of
const-cerrectness.
I've never seen it mentioned in the standard. What is good is that the
language allows us
to pursue const-correctness *if* we want to.
> For someone to claim that, she'd have to prove that there
> is some self-contradiction in it, which I don't think is the case.
The contradiction lies in those who argue const-correctness is good, yet
don't want it in
one of the most important places. That's inconsistency.
br
Thorsten