Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 602835
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T16:51:55+00:00 2026-05-13T16:51:55+00:00

I am creating a constructor that will take a pair of input iterators. I

  • 0

I am creating a constructor that will take a pair of input iterators. I want the method signature to have compile-time const semantics similar to:

DataObject::DataObject(const char *begin, const char *end)

However, I can’t find any examples of this.
For example, my STL implementation’s range constructor for vector is defined as:

template<class InputIterator>
vector::vector(InputIterator first, InputIterator last)
{
    construct(first, last, iterator_category(first));
}

which has no compile-time const guarantees. iterator_category / iterator_traits<> contain nothing relating to const, either.

Is there any way to indicate to guarantee the caller that I can’t modify the input data?

edit, 2010-02-03 16:35 UTC

As an example of how I would like to use the function, I would like to be able to pass a pair of char* pointers and know, based on the function signature, that the data they point at will not be modified.
I was hoping I could avoid creating a pair of const char* pointers to guarantee const_iterator semantics. I may be forced to pay the template tax in this case.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T16:51:55+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 4:51 pm

    You could simply create a dummy function which calls your template with char * const pointers. If your template attempts to modify their targets, then your dummy function will not compile. You can then put said dummy inside #ifndef NDEBUG guards to exclude it from release builds.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.