2014-11-19 19:42 GMT+01:00 Tim Shen <tims...@google.com>: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> > wrote: >> Good. To be clear, not having carefully analyzed whatsoever, my point was >> more about changing _M_end too, to non-const, than about not touching >> _M_begin. Would that make sense? > > Currently we never mutate _M_end. I *believe* that we still won't in > the future, since _M_end is not as volatile as _M_begin.
I agree with Tim here, why shouldn't the const member and the non-const member coexist? - Daniel
