Comment by mgaunard
4 days ago
For pointers, const only affects whether you can re-set it to point to something else, not the pointee.
Nothing prevents you from building a smart pointer with those semantics though, std::indirect is an example of this (arguably closer to Rust's Box).
Sure, but my point is that the semantics between C++ and Rust are different, and are therefore not an exact match as the article stated.
In C++, you define the semantics yourself.
No, const semantics are defined by the language definition.
1 reply →