From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:umzzl3pvk.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
Richard Hadsell <hadsell@blueskystudios.com> writes:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
When I was writing it I initially typed 'const_cast', but then thought to myself: why use my big guns if I don't have to? ;-)
For clarity -- to tell the reader that you intended to modify the const-ness.
static_cast is a bigger gun than const_cast. At least const_cast cant violate data layout, and unless there is actually a constant object, won't result in undefined behavior.
Good point. I guess part of the reason I avoid const_cast whenever possible is that people look upon it suspiciously, even if it's only adding cv-qualification. Maybe people should be more suspicious of static_cast.
As Dave points out, there is much more possible with static_cast, so it should be viewed with suspicion. Casting away constness is always worth a second look (including asking why mutable wasn't used), and adding const is certainly unusual. Therefore, I understand why you would consider const_cast to be more of a problem than static_cast. The bottom line is any cast should be considered suspect and should, in most contexts, be documented. (That allows a future maintainer the opportunity to remove it if an alternative is found.) -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;