Doing something like Row[1] will produce a compile-time error. Since 1 is created as a
constant by the compiler. The compiler won't explicitely cast from non-const to const. it
will, however, do the opposite. So I think it'd be better to take a constant since the
value is not modified anyways, or so I think. I could be wrong, which is why I was
asking.
Respectfully,
Alan Alvarez.
----- Original Message -----
From: Warren Young <mysqlpp@stripped>
Date: Monday, March 20, 2006 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: Row::at() doesn't take const int?
> alan.alvarez@stripped wrote:
> > Is there a reason why Row::at() doesn't take constant unsigned ints?
> > same with the [] operator.
>
> Since size_type is a typedef for unsigned int, I guess you're
> complaining that it isn't const? What value could making it const
> possibly provide? Constness only matters with reference and
> pointer
> parameters.
>
> --
> MySQL++ Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus?unsub=1
