Eric Lemings wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Another potential hole in the tuple specs
Eric Lemings wrote:
[...]
A const assignment operator? Sounds unorthodox but I'll try it out.
My current workaround is to declare std::ignore mutable (i.e.
non-const). A const assignment operator (if it works) would be
preferable; no visible workaround required.
Remember that even the absence (or presence) of the const
qualifier on things like std::ignore can be detected by
conformance test suites so dropping it is not a viable
option.
Assuming the draft standard is actually correct, that is.
In this case,
I don't think there is any real need for std::ignore to be a constant
really. (Thinking about asking whether std::ignore really needs to be a
constant on the committee reflector.)
IMO, there is no need for it not to be, and being constant
is more efficient than not (can be stored in ROM).
I tried making std::ignore const and adding const to the internal
assignment operator. I also tried adding overloads for const and
non-const assignment. Still got errors in all cases.
The only other recourse I can think of is to use remove_const on the
element types where appropriate.
ignore is declared const in Boost so there must be a way
to implement tie() without declaring the object non-const.
Martin
