4 ms·

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

by mgaunard 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo ago
  In C++, you define the semantics yourself.
  - wtetzner 10mo ago
    No, const semantics are defined by the language definition.
    - mgaunard 10mo 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.