David Abrahams wrote:
"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Also an interesting question is how to get the type system to enforce the immutability of a type. If there is a type which is inherently immutable (because it is empty, for instance), we have two options:
I guess I don't get what you're trying to accomplish here. If it's inherently immutable, the compiler is enforcing immutability no matter what you do. IOW, there's no available interface through which you can mutate instances. That's just what adding const to a well-behaved mutable type does: makes all mutating operations unavailable.
What am I missing?
Terminology issue? I mean, if there is a type X, and we want "x = y" to fail to compile for objects x,y of type X, what is the best way to accomplish that? 1) X is actually a typedef for a const-qualified type detail::X_impl 2) X has a private copy-assign operator I then pointed out that neither of these are appropriate for keyword<>. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com