> So it does the optimization possible with const. Not the "interface" > part, though. If you don't like type decorations, I guess this way's > better.
from my point of view, const pretends to be something it isn't. it does not guarantee you anything at all (it is routinely necessary to cast from const to non-const), and most ironically of all, in the only place where const would actually mean something, literal strings, which are often held in read-only memory, the type is not const qualified.
