On 2011-03-13 23:32:34 +0100, Magnus Lie Hetland said:
(Still open to schooling on the design part of this, though. Perhaps declaring a method as const is no good when it's not *really* const? For now, I'm just doing it to check that I don't inadvertently change things I don't want to change.)
Actually, I have a local (recursive) traversal function in the method I was talking about. Ended up not declaring the method as const, but declaring the argument of the traversal function as const. No misleading const declarations "outside", and I get the automatic checks that I want.
-- Magnus Lie Hetland http://hetland.org
