Hi Jeff,
- testing that const is in the right places in the interface is *exactly* the right kinds of tests to write.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but can you give some examples of tests that would fail with this change that a new and strict compiler will not be able to catch? Obviously I'm referring to cases which would work correctly if this ticket wasn't accepted, but will not work if it were. Unless there are such examples, all this ticket requires is letting the compiler find the problems for you. In fact, some tickets in 2.1 required more QA, as a compiler was useless in catching any real problems with them and new tests had to be written (e.g., the change with respect to 0-dim cartesian topologies, or any other trivial change). Now, to keep the compiler quiet, whether the implementation directly discards the const at the top-level or carries it on to the lowest possible level (e.g., network interface) is a separate discussion and IMO really a quality of implementation issue. And, obviously, pushing this to 3.0 would not ensure that implementations will make an effort to do better. So, what's the motivation to move this to 3.0? Thanks, -- Pavan -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji