On Wednesday 17 April 2002 8:21 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | I'm clearly confused when it comes to "const" and member pointers.
> |
> | See the little code snippet below. If I compile it, I get the error:
> |
> | cxx: Error: trial.C, line 23: (that is, in the const_method)
> | the object has type qualifiers that are not compatible with the member
> | function
> | func(ob());
>
> I get this message:
>
> testsome.C: In member function `void Wrapper::const_method() const':
> testsome.C:23: passing `const Wrapper' as `this' argument of `FL_OBJECT*
> Wrapper::ob()' discards qualifiers
>
>
> Looks perfectly sane too me.
>
> all methods that const_method calls must be const.
>
> if I make ob() const everything just compiles.
I know this. I'm just trying to improve my understanding.
The interesting thing is that if I have a class
class wrapper {
public:
wrapper(FL_OBJECT * ob) : ob_(ob) {}
/* public methods */
private:
FL_OBJECT * const ob_;
};
then ALL the methods can be const, because we never change the pointer, just
what it points to.
class wrapper {
...
void setGeometry(uint x, uint y, uint w, uint h) CONST;
};
Now that strikes me as being just wierd.
My question is now, should I make all methods const, or rather use my
intuition about which are const and which aren't. This makes more sense to me:
class wrapper {
...
void setGeometry(uint x, uint y, uint w, uint h);
uint x() const;
};
Do you have any opinions about which way I should go?
Angus
