Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:33:44 +0000
On June 12, 2025 6:19:07 PM UTC, Jennifier Burnett via Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>Isn't that already covered in Paragraph 2?
>
>Yes, that's exactly what it's saying, I'm responding to what you said after that (the quote at the start of my email) where you inferred that it means that an object passed by const ref being modified is forbidden, which I don't think follows from a strict reading (assuming the ref itself isn't const). I think this might all be besides the point wrt your confusion though.
That seems a little too strict. References themselves can't be const, and top-level constness is not strictly part of the signature (in the sense that `void f (int*)` and `void f (int* const)` refer to the same function).
>>Isn't that already covered in Paragraph 2?
>
>Yes, that's exactly what it's saying, I'm responding to what you said after that (the quote at the start of my email) where you inferred that it means that an object passed by const ref being modified is forbidden, which I don't think follows from a strict reading (assuming the ref itself isn't const). I think this might all be besides the point wrt your confusion though.
That seems a little too strict. References themselves can't be const, and top-level constness is not strictly part of the signature (in the sense that `void f (int*)` and `void f (int* const)` refer to the same function).
Received on 2025-06-12 20:34:02