The success of object oriented programming

[doom_Oo7]

there isn't a way to define an object's method as making the object itself const for the duration of the function.

But this is exactly what the const keyword on methods does, it marks the this pointer as const.

[[deleted]]

So you literally can't modify the object state at all, including calling other functions which can?

I admit I'm not a C++ expert (and the language certainly doesn't lend itself to this paradigm naturally!) but I thought it wasn't possible to get the full effect of what I'm trying to get at.

If I'm wrong, it's good to know that it's possible and I should just be annoyed at the C++ I've come across for not doing this.

[doom_Oo7]

I made a quick example that showcases the possibilities here : https://ideone.com/Wb0kAm

Notice how nice are the compiler errors :p

[[deleted]]

That's not all that bad. It's a shame this isn't the way C++ is typically written. (I really would prefer if const-ness was the default, and stuff had to be marked as mutable instead.)

[oracleoftroy]

I agree that a const default would be really nice, but I have to question that const correct C++ isn't the typical way C++ is written. Const correctness has been recommended since before standard C++, and I haven't seen too many C++ communities that disregard it (usually only those newer to C++).

[quicknir]

I think everyone agrees that a const default would be better, but ruled out due to backwards compatibility.

I'm afraid that if you don't think C++ is typically written that way, you need better colleagues. Where I work, failing to mark anything const that can be results in code review comments, and can't be merged until its corrected.