Hi,
On 11/19/2014 07:43 PM, Daniel Krügler wrote:
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?
I was just aiming for consistency, from a very, very, general point of
view. Jon will review the substance of the patch, anyway.
Thanks!
Paolo.
