> During te change to string const I did not ave to change any code.
So it does not cost anything except the 'clutter' of additional 'const's.
I really wish 'const' was the default and there was a 'mutable' modifier
to express non-constness. But that's probably 20 years late now.
> I followed t
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I don't really know. There are only a few places where this would be
| a (disputable) advantage for consistency reasons.
:-) true I guess but it is part of the "programming-by-contract"
paradigm and also a way to ensure that tempraries are not modi
> Why have all functions returning a string changed from
> string func();
> to
> string const func();
I don't really know. There are only a few places where this would be
a (disputable) advantage for consistency reasons.
In general _I_ prefer returning a "nonconst" string that can be
