On 06-08-2012 19:57, deadalnix wrote:
Le 05/08/2012 11:47, Simen Kjaeraas a écrit :
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:36:56 +0200, Jakob Ovrum <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Friday, 3 August 2012 at 19:19:24 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
Does anyone else find this behavior too strict?
Yes. Sounds like yet another case of forcing bitwise const on
something that should only be logically const.
Please stop forcing bitwise constancy on everything. Not everything
needs to work with immutable, it should be opt-in (which in this case
could mean explicitly marking the invariant as const) for any type.
I was about to argue that non-const invariants could not be called when
calling const or immutable member functions, but then it hit me that
those shouldn't be able to influence the state checked by the invariant
anyway.
That is a very good point. Should invariant run on const/immutable
method calls ?
They should.
In the real world, things are not as nice as const and immutable would
have you believe. Things can be modified indirectly by the invariant
(through a global variable for example), or even by another thread. We
need invariants to run as often as possible to catch problems like these
instead of pretending they don't exist.
--
Alex Rønne Petersen
[email protected]
http://lycus.org
