This randomly made me wonder ... if(const int * == int const *) Is that just a personal preference thing? Gaz -----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov Sent: 26 October 2004 14:21 To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] gcc-3.4.1 and add_const Alexander Neubeck wrote:

Hi.

I recognized a strange (wrong?) behaviour of gcc-3.4.1 (and gcc-3.3.3). When adding const to a type T and this type T is a reference, the result is just T again (with reference, but witout const)! Then I tested, if boost handles this case correctly, and it didn't. The type of add_const< int & >::result is int & and not as expected const int &.

Your expectation was wrong. A "const" reference to int is not the same as a reference to a const int. [...]

My questions to you: Can anybody verify this behaviour? Is this behaviour intended? If yes, WHY?

Because that's how top-level const works. int * const != int const *, and int & const != int const &.

P.S: It was quite difficult to check, which result-type the add_const really created. First I used typeid( ... ).name(). But then I recognized that int, int &, const int & produce ALL THE SAME name?!?

Yes, that's how typeid works. _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users