Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> writes: > I think opEquals for classes is at fault for requiring const.
Something seems different from C++'s const here. One can always call a const member function on a class instance in C++, regardless of whether the instance is referred to through a const or non-const reference. Is this bug saying that you can't call a const member function through a non-const reference to an instance? Or maybe it's complaining that your opEquals() declaration isn't const? If it's declared non-const, can one then not call it through a const reference to an instance? That would be bad. -- Steven E. Harris
