On 02/10/2011 10:09 AM, so wrote:
(1) If it is a const member function, then it will have a viral effect on all
objects -- any function called by opEquals will have to be marked const.
It doesn't look like we can solve this by switching the constness of an
Object.function,
Is this point very annoying in practice? In my experience, such "language
methods" like opEquals are typically small and simple. They do not call other
funcs very often, except sometimes super(), or the opEquals of their members.
When they call one 'normal' func, it can be one that barely has any other use
than beeing called from there. The remaining cases of virality should be very
rare, shouldn't they?
Globally, I wouldn't care very much about the viral effect of const for such
language methods, precisely. What do you think?
denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
