On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:57 PM leon zadorin <leonleon77@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> template<typename T>
> void foo(T const f)
> {
> f();
> }
...
> the effect of 'mutable' (i.e. making operator()() non-const) are not
detected by GCC/clang to a point where both of the following compile ok:
> int main()
> {
> foo([](){});
> foo([]() mutable {});
> }
>
... actually never mind, I take it back :) I think GCC/clang are ok in
that regard, reading https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/lambda
"mutable: allows body to modify the parameters captured by copy, and to
call their non-const member functions"
makes it more clear for me... as in the above lambdas have no captures
anyways (i.e. no effect), and with any captures (e.g. mutating with
mutable) the expected compilation failure becomes evident, so in effect
GCC/clang are doing this fine :)
sorry for the noise everyone :)
Kind regards
Leon.
