Am 13.03.2011 23:27, schrieb Magnus Lie Hetland:
I have a data structure that's generally static (const, or even
immutable), but it has some utility storage, which caches certain
results during use. This caching etc. doesn't really affect the
semantics of the main object, and are reset between
On 2011-03-14 00:17:18 +0100, Jonathan M Davis said:
So, if you don't actually manage to _really_
be logically const, or if you do this with an immutable object (which would
likely result in a segfault), you _are_ going to have incorrect code. On the
whole, I'd advise just not using const when
On 2011-03-14 11:51:09 +0100, Mafi said:
I found away which doesn't use casts or bugs.
Just use delegates/closures.
Nice :D
--
Magnus Lie Hetland
http://hetland.org
I have a data structure that's generally static (const, or even
immutable), but it has some utility storage, which caches certain
results during use. This caching etc. doesn't really affect the
semantics of the main object, and are reset between operations, so I
think it still would be useful
On 2011-03-13 23:27:14 +0100, Magnus Lie Hetland said:
Any other ideas on how to handle this sort of mostly const or const
where it counts stuff? Perhaps my design intentions here are off to
begin with?-)
OK -- a *little* quick on the trigger there. My solution: Declare the
method const,
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
On Sunday 13 March 2011 15:32:34 Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
On 2011-03-13 23:27:14 +0100, Magnus Lie Hetland said:
Any other ideas on how to handle this sort of mostly const or const
where it counts stuff? Perhaps my design intentions here are off to
begin with?-)
OK -- a *little* quick
