On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 13:21:21 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
Fundamental issue here is that
const T t;
is almost useless, it is essentially immutable since you cannot
change it and you cannot alias it. As such, it probably should
be changed to a mutable object or an immutable one.
It's generic code. See the linked code and you'll see that this
is not an option.
However, since const/mutable aliasing is allowed, you can do:
union U (T)
{
const T ct;
T mt;
}
because const doesn't mean that object would never change, you
can mutate it through alias. From the opposite view, there is
also no problem in reinterpeting a mutable object as const
object (since mutables can be converted to const).
Depending on your mutable indirection situation this can work
or may not.
Mutable indirection is actually not the problem with this
solution, it's the casting away of const. There's no guarantee
here that the data wasn't actually immutable when it was created.
