🚀 go-pugleaf

Greg Colvin (gregor@netcom.com) wrote:
> This was a hard call, and I'm open to suggestions.  Adding a mutable
> member to a class is never pretty, but making the member visible in any
> way is ugly:  I don't like for a const argument to change its value,
> and I think of the value of an object as being whatever its public
> interface reveals. 

But why in this case instead of adding mutable member just change
auto_ptr<T>(const auto_ptr<T>&) to auto_ptr<T>(auto_ptr<T>&)
and 
auto_ptr<T>& operator=(const auto_ptr<T>&) to
auto_ptr<T>& operator=(auto_ptr<T>&)

This will explicitly reflect the semantic of auto_ptr and if somebody really 
want to change the state of const object, they can explicitly wright
about this:
auto_ptr<someType> autoPtr(const_cast<auto_ptr<someType>&>(autoPtrConst)); 


--
Regards, Igor Boukanov. 
igor.boukanov@fi.uib.no  
http://www.fi.uib.no/~boukanov/


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]