On const reference arguments passing
 

Hi,

I am trying to change my way of programming (I am still learning) , in
particular I am putting an effort in passing const ref to functions,
when possible.

When possible means (to me) when that function is not going to modify
the object I pass to it.

Many times though, I create an object, call a function (taking a non-
const ref) that modifies it somehow and then
need to use that object as parameter for a function that takes a const
ref, that will only read the object.

The compiler complains, since I am passing a non-const object to the
function and the only thing that I can do is to cast away the
constness, but is this the right way to go? It feels wrong...

Thanks for your hints.

/G

Re: On const reference arguments passing
 

On 16 Apr, 16:12, "Giff" <Giffn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Forget my post.

Re: On const reference arguments passing
 

Giff wrote:
> I am trying to change my way of programming (I am still learning) , in
> particular I am putting an effort in passing const ref to functions,
> when possible.
>
> When possible means (to me) when that function is not going to modify
> the object I pass to it.

That's a good rule. Also, when you think of treading the object as
"a value", it may still be reasonable to pass by reference to const,
instead of passing by value.

> Many times though, I create an object, call a function (taking a non-
> const ref) that modifies it somehow and then
> need to use that object as parameter for a function that takes a const
> ref, that will only read the object.

That sounds reasonable.

> The compiler complains, since I am passing a non-const object to the
> function and the only thing that I can do is to cast away the
> constness, but is this the right way to go? It feels wrong...

That doesn't sound right. Could you please support this statement
with code? I can only see such behaviour of the compiler if the
situation is reversed -- calling a function expecting a ref to non-
const object from a function where the object is const (i.e. you
passed the object by reference to const):

class a {};
void foo(a& ra);
void bar(a const & ra) {
foo(ra); // error
}
int main() {
a object;
bar(object);
}

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

Re: On const reference arguments passing
 

On 16 Apr, 16:27, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:

> > The compiler complains, since I am passing a non-const object to the
> > function and the only thing that I can do is to cast away the
> > constness, but is this the right way to go? It feels wrong...
>
> That doesn't sound right.

I know, sorry for the post. I was doing something else wrong and I
have just been too impatient.
My apologies to the group, and thanks for your reply anyway.