11–20 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You specify that the place s is const, not the value it keeps. You can still do: #include #include // not your code void innocentF(std::string const& s) { (const_cast (s)) += std::string(" I'm evil."); } // your code int main() { std::string const s("hello world."); innocentF(s); std::cout
immutable_string s("hello world."); reinterpret_cast (s) += "I'm evil";
It's immutable but it defines swap? That seems.. odd.
This defeats the purpose of std::string const s("Hello");
You specify that the place s is const, not the value it keeps. You can still do: #include #include // not your code void innocentF(std::string const& s) { (const_cast (s)) += std::string(" I'm evil."); } // your code int main() { std::string const s("hello world."); innocentF(s); std::cout
I don't really understand why you would want this other than to trick yourself into thinking you are writing java. (I already find it really annoying when people port their Javaisms to C++.)
Also, I hope you're not suggesting immutability is a Javaism...
I don't really understand why you would want this other than to trick yourself into thinking you are writing java. (I already find it really annoying when people port their Javaisms to C++.)
The author also has a rather [confusing article][1] about immutable vs const, that I would discredit personally. He claims that objects accessed via reference to const can modify themselves, which is not true, as you can only access const functions through a const reference.
[1]: http://blog.reliablecpp.com/2013/09/immutable-vs-const/
I don't really understand why you would want this other than to trick yourself into thinking you are writing java. (I already find it really annoying when people port their Javaisms to C++.)
The page is down, but: Most languages have immutable strings. Also, I hope you're not suggesting immutability is a Javaism...
I don't mention Java ;)