3 ms·

> C++ has a perfect match for Rust’s mutability: const and non-const. Rust has inherited mutability, while I believe const in C++ is shallow. I don't think it'

• mgaunard 9mo ago
  members of a const struct are also const. Now you obviously can still have escape hatches and cast the const away whenever you want.
  • wtetzner 9mo ago
    > members of a const struct are also const. Yes, but if your struct contains references, the constness doesn't apply to what those references point to. In Rust it does.
    • mgaunard 9mo 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).
      • wtetzner 9mo ago
        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.
        • mgaunard 9mo ago
          In C++, you define the semantics yourself.
          • wtetzner 9mo ago
            No, const semantics are defined by the language definition.
            • mgaunard 9mo ago
              It's defined by whatever you put in your const overloads. const is primarily a type annotation that affects overload resolution. You must be confused because Rust has no overloading to begin with.