What can a 'const' method change?

Question

C++ methods allow a const qualifier to indicate that the object is not changed by the method. But what does that mean? Eg. if the instance variables are pointers, does it mean that the pointers are not changed, or also that the memory to which they point is not changed?

Concretely, here is a minimal example class

class myclass {   int * data;    myclass() {     data = new int[10];   }    ~myclass() {     delete [] data;   }    void set(const int index) const {     data[index] = 1;   } }; 

Does the method set correctly qualify as const? It does not change the member variable data, but it sure does change the content of the array.

Answer 1

What can a 'const' method change?

Without explicitly casting away constness, a const method can change:

• mutable data members, and
• any data the class has non-const access to, irrespective of whether that data's accessible:
  • via member variables that are pointers or references,
  • via pointers or references passed as function parameters,
  • via pointers or references returned by functions,
  • directly in the namespace or class (for statics) containing it.

For members of class/struct/union type, it relies on the constness of their member functions to determine which operations should be allowed. (It can also change any non-const local variables and by-value parameters, but I know that's not what you're interested in).

It can call other const methods which will have these same abilities and restrictions.

Eg. if the instance variables are pointers, does it mean that the pointers are not changed, or also that the memory to which they point is not changed?

It means the pointers can't be (easily/accidentally) changed. It does not mean that the pointed-to memory can't be changed.

What you've stumbled on is the logical incorrectness of a const function changing pointed-to or referenced data conceptually owned by the object. As you've found, the compiler doesn't enforce the const correctness you may want or expect here. That's a bit dangerous, but means constness doesn't need to be explicitly removed for pointers/references to other objects which may be changed as a side-effect of the const function. For example, a logging object. (Typically, such objects are not logically "owned" by the object whose const function is operating on them.) The key point is that the compiler can't reliably distinguish the type of logical ownership an object has over pointed-to data, so it's got to guess one way or the other and allow the programmer to either override, or not be protected by const-ness. C++ forgoes the protection.

Interesting, I've heard Walter Bright's D language flips this default, making pointed-to data const by default in const functions. That's seems safer to me, though it's hard to imagine how often one would end up needing to explicitly cast away constness to allow wanted side-effects, and whether that would feel satisfyingly precise or annoyingly verbose.