>>> Even in a class that is used in a tree, I still think simple member >>> variable accessor methods (that do not return tree neighbors) should be >>> const. >> >> OK. Why? > > Because it indicates to me and the compiler, that the method doesn't have > side effects.
A const member function can have side effects. It can modify any global state outside the object. It can also modify sub-objects inside the object, and return non-const references to sub-objects and related objects that might be used to produce side-effects at any time. It's exactly statements like this that make me think that const member functions are a bad idea -- people think they provide a guarantee, but they don't. Geoff _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
