For the following code snippet,
class A{
const int a;
public:
A(): a(0){}
A(int m_a):a(m_a){};
A& operator =(const A &other);
};
A & A::operator =(const A &other)
{
const_cast<int&>(a) = other开发者_StackOverflow中文版.a;
return *this;
}
what do the lines of
A & A::operator =(const A &other)
const_cast<int&>(a) = other.a;
mean? Or why this operator is defined this way? In other words, I feel confused about its usage and the way it is defined/written.
The const_cast
removes the const
from the const
member a
, thus allowing the assignment from other.a
to succeed (without the const_cast
the type of a
would be const int
, and thus it wouldn't be modifiable).
Probably the idea is that a
is initialized at class construction and can't be modified "by design" in any other place, but the author of the class decided to make an exception for assignment.
I have mixed feelings against this piece of code, very often the use of a const_cast
is a symptom of bad design, on the other hand it can be logical to allow assignment but retain the const
for all the other operations.
a is a const member variable. const_cast(a) bypasses the const-correctness rules. Otherwise, you could only assign a in the initializer list of the constructor.
精彩评论