Enrico Forestieri wrote: > Are you sure it is pointless? runparams is a reference and even if > it is constant, there are mutable members that could be changed. > The copy you removed maybe tries to protect against that.
If the mutable members really make a difference then they should not be mutable IMHO. Making a member mutable just to be able to pass a const refrence around does not look OK. A mutable member should only be used for things like caching information that could always be recomputed, but might be expensive to compute. I have no idea whether the mutable runparams members fall into this category. If yes, the only drawback of Richards change might be a performance penalty. That said, I agree that removing the variable at this stage of development is probably a little bit risky. Georg
