Re:C++11 breaking changes in const-correctness guarantees
by cdmh on Thursday May 30, 2013 @06:52AM
(#5791761)
I've updated the text to emphasize that. Thanks for pointing it out
Re:C++11 breaking changes in const-correctness guarantees
by foobarbazqux on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:17AM
(#5791822)
Looks good!
This was confusing to read in the context of C++, because I typically associate that view with functional programming. Don't the majority of C++ classes require mutable data to work properly, even the ones in the STL? How do you write std::vector<> without mutable data?
Ok, so I looked a bit more, and it turns out there's a "mutable" keyword...