Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!apple.com!arn
From: arn@apple.com (Arn Schaeffer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Const member function semantics
Message-ID: <3031@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 24 Jul 89 16:00:19 GMT
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 21
References:<2943@internal.Apple.COM> <9662@alice.UUCP>

In article <9662@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
> Well, you can use a cast to remove the constness of `this'
> if you insist.  Opinions are divided, however, about whether
> such an operation should always be guaranteed to work.

Your solution works great if I ALWAYS want const to make the "object 
hasn't changed in a way perceptible through the external interface" 
statement.  I guess what I wanted was a way to do both things.  It seems 
to me that there needs to be a way to make the statement at the interface 
level otherwise clients who expect const to be a storage statement will be 
disappointed (or bus error.)  Perhaps this statement could be made with 
the addition of yet another type specifier.  For example, "const" could 
make the statement that the storage for this object is not mucked with and 
"stable" (or some better word) could make the statement that this object 
isn't mucked with in a way perceptible through the external interface.

Arn Schaeffer
Apple Computer
arn@apple.com

The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Apple Computer.