I am working on const-correctness of my code and just wondered why this code compiles:
class X { int x; int& y; public: X(int& _y):y(_y) { } void f(int& newY) const { //x = 3; would not work, that's fine y = newY; //does compile. Why? } }; int main(int argc, char **argv) { int i1=0, i2=0; X myX(i1); myX.f(i2); ... }
As far as I understand, f() is changing the object myX, although it says to be const. How can I ensure my compiler complains when I do assign to y? (Visual C++ 2008)
Thank a lot!
Because you are not changing any variable in X
. Actually, you are changing _y
which is an outsider with respect to your class. Don't forget that:
y = newY;
Is assigning the value of newY
to the variable pointed by y
, but not the references them selves. Only on initialization the references are considered.
The situation is similar to pointer members. In a const member function, the const applies to the pointer itself, not the pointee.
It's the difference between:
X* const //this is how the const applies: you can modify the pointee const X*
Except X& const
isn't valid syntax, since the reference can't be made to refer to another object in the first place (they are implicitly always const). In conclusion: const on methods has no effect on member references.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With