-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
added constness_ptr
as pointer wrapper to ensure actual method constness
#4785
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
There's |
We do not have many pointer left in the code so this should be taking a reference now. |
35a740b
to
d193431
Compare
I will tackle references later on - let's start with the pointers which are not supposed to be references yet. |
I don't really understand what we achieve with this |
From https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/propagate_const:
|
The name is misleading though. I think this started as something totally different. Not sure what to call it - |
I feel a bit skeptic about this spontanously. But yeah some name that indicates that const is propagated sounds good. But at the same time it shouldn't be too long. I wonder how people would feel about a cppcheck checker that tells them about accessing non-const member data using const pointers. Spontanously it seems wrong to do that and I could use that in our selfchecks at least. or do you know a use case when we would want to write such data? I considered such a checker a long time ago but I dropped the idea for some reason. I don't remember why. But I guess it was simply because of limited time and there are plenty of undefined behavior to discover so I rather wanted to work on that. |
https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/11127 Not really a use case but something which will cause a lot of On a side note I wonder if there is a simple trick to propagate that a function should not be |
I renamed it |
safe_ptr
as pointer wrapper to ensure actual method constnessconstness_ptr
as pointer wrapper to ensure actual method constness
I like that name better. |
I implemented it in simplecpp - see danmar/simplecpp#548. |
No description provided.