🚀 go-pugleaf

Is this a bug in the C++ definition? A method's arg is declared const
in its class declaration, but is allowed to be treated non const in
the method definition. Would at least a warning be helpful here?

#include <stdio.h>

class C
{
  public:
  static void getInt (const int i);
};

void
C::getInt (int i)
{
  i = 17;
}

main ()
{
  int j = 0;
  
  C::getInt (j);

  printf ("j: %d\n", j);   // prints j: 0
}

A similar helpful warning would be for a function or method such as

void
getInt (int i)
{
  i = 17;
}

to get a warning such as "argument passed by value was set and never read".

-- 
Walter.L.Bunch@jpl.nasa.gov