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 8954795
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 15, 20262026-06-15T14:23:31+00:00 2026-06-15T14:23:31+00:00

I have this obsession with making things const that really should be const ,

  • 0

I have this obsession with making things const that really should be const, even when it seems a bit painful to do so.

In this case, I want a vector<int> into which I can add elements, but whose existing elements I cannot change. The problem is that vector<const int> is not allowed.

The purpose is not only to prevent the users of my classes to modify things they shouldn’t modify (this can be easily done by const iterators in member functions). It is also, just as importantly, so I myself don’t later do things in my own code that I didn’t intend on doing.

I have found two alternatives:

  • Use deque<const int> instead.

  • Create my own vector class that wraps the actual vector, like this (I do this for int here, but in reality I would use templates for generality)

    class my_vector {
    private:
      std::vector<int> vec;    
    public:
      std::vector<int>::const_iterator cbegin() { return vec.cbegin(); }
      std::vector<int>::const_iterator cend() { return vec.cend(); }
      void push_back(int i) { vec.push_back(i); }
    };
    

Which of these ideas (or others) would you recommend? Will the compiler turn the second alternative into code that is just as fast as using the vector directly?

  • 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
    2026-06-15T14:23:32+00:00Added an answer on June 15, 2026 at 2:23 pm

    Your obsession is understandable and I do not disagree, but unless you have a really pressing need for it, the effort required might not be worth the effort.

    Assuming you chose vector as your container based on your design requirement, I would not recommend changing it to deque, or any other type. It would only serve to confuse a future reader (which would likely be yourself), and is also a bad practice otherwise.

    If we go with your wrapper solution, you would have to hide override all members which could modify the vector, which is a problem since there are a number of methods used to both access and modify, such as operator[], at(), front(), back(). This could confuse a future reader, since they are used to the “standard” vector behavior.

    By the way, are you sure deque<const int> foo; works? I get the following error:

    error: invalid conversion from 'const void*' to 'void*'
    

    Edit It seems I didn’t quite answer your question. If you have to pick one, I would choose the wrapper approach.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have this string 2012-06-27 16:17:06 and I want to convert it to GMT
hello all i want to retrieve my all the wall post that i have
I have this obsession with doing realtime character animations based on inverse kinematics and
Im fairly new to NodeJS(using c9.io) and have this sick obsession with it lately.
Have this query: SELECT HOUR( DATE ) AS hr, COUNT( * ) AS cnt
Have this self-made slider: http://jsfiddle.net/wyc3P/4/ What it does: takes min and max values in
I have this application where I implement the ActionBar Fragment interface. Underlying the interface,
I have this form, in which i need to populate a combo box with
I have this form: <%= form_tag posts_path, :method => :get, :class => search_nav do
I have this function // add history paths and save data function AddPath( strTag,

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.