"Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW" <v.f.vanraveste...@tudelft.nl> writes: > Because there is no reason to make it non-const. I can't think of a > reason to allow code from outside the Cursor class to change the result > of the Cursor dispatching machinery. > > If something can be const, it's better to make it a const, right ?
The interest would be to allow dispatch to call some other method and pass a Cursor that would be responsible for updating its DispatchResult. And there is a nice way to make some cursor member accessible as const only: have the cusros itself be const. I would be surprised to find that we have so many class member variables that are only accessible as const. It is a minor point anyway (but the bug you fixed was more interesting...) JMarc
