Question

I generally prefer constness, but recently came across a conundrum with const iterators that shakes my const attitude annoys me about them:

MyList::const_iterator find( const MyList & list, int identifier )
{
    // do some stuff to find identifier
    return retConstItor; // has to be const_iterator because list is const
}

The idea that I’m trying to express here, of course, is that the passed in list cannot/willnot be changed, but once I make the list reference const I then have to use ‘const_iterator’s which then prevent me from doing anything with modifing the result (which makes sense).

Is the solution, then, to give up on making the passed in container reference const, or am I missing another possibility?

This has always been my secret reservation about const: That even if you use it correctly, it can create issues that it shouldn’t where there is no good/clean solution, though I recognize that this is more specifically an issue between const and the iterator concept.

Edit: I am very aware of why you cannot and should not return a non-const iterator for a const container. My issue is that while I want a compile-time check for my container which is passed in by reference, I still want to find a way to pass back the position of something, and use it to modify the non-const version of the list. As mentioned in one of the answers it’s possible to extract this concept of position via “advance”, but messy/inefficient.

Answer 1

If I understand what you’re saying correctly, you’re trying to use const to indicate to the caller that your function will not modify the collection, but you want the caller (who may have a non-const reference to the collection) to be able to modify the collection using the iterator you return. If so, I don’t think there’s a clean solution for that, unless the container provides a mechanism for turning a const interator into a non-const one (I’m unaware of a container that does this). Your best bet is probably to have your function take a non-const reference. You may also be able to have 2 overloads of your function, one const and one non-const, so that in the case of a caller who has only a const reference, they will still be able to use your function.