On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 09:48:07PM +0200, Gawain Bolton wrote:
1. I do not like the lack of symmetry with the casts for const vs.
non-const functions.
Non-const versions often require a reinterpret_cast whereas const
versions can use static_cast.
Can't you combine const_cast and static_cast to achieve the same thing?
As in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2003-07/msg00297.html
2. The "const" typedefs.
Why do I have to define "const" versions of the typedefs?
If I have "typedef _Rb_tree_node* _Link_type;" then why can't I
use "const _Link_type" instead of having to define an explicit
const typedef like "typedef const _Rb_tree_node* _const_Link_type;"?
Because "const _Link_type" is the same as "_Link_type const" which is
"_Rb_tree_node* const" which is a const-pointer to a non-const-node,
not a pointer to a const-node.