Home/ Questions/Q 699267
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-14T03:22:03+00:00

In a multithreaded scenario, I have a method like this: bool WaitForChange( time_duration WaitTime

  • 0

In a multithreaded scenario, I have a method like this:

bool WaitForChange( time_duration WaitTime ) const;

This method waits either until the state of the object has changed and returns true, or until the timeout times out (how do you say that?) and returns false.

My intuition is, that const is to protect against unwanted side-effects of the method itself, so this is fine. But then again, some user might think that the state of the could not have changed, since the method is declared const. Is that user stupid, or should I make the method non-const in order to avoid confusion?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    By declaring the method as const, you say “Calling this method doesn’t change the state of the object.” This is (hopefully) true. So make it const.

    If anybody thinks, const-ness means “While this method is called, no one else can change the object state” than that person is wrong.

    • 0