dot dot dot dot dot dot - 6 months ago 58
C++ Question

Create const iterator and non const iterator

I am writing an iterator class (say

) for a library.

Is it a good idea to use const overloading to make
const MyIterator
acts like a
acts as like

Will the library user/developer get confused?

The implementation would be like:

// std::iterator example
#include <iostream> // std::cout
#include <iterator> // std::iterator, std::input_iterator_tag

class MyIterator : public std::iterator<std::input_iterator_tag, int>
mutable int* p;
MyIterator(int* x) :p(x) {}
MyIterator(const MyIterator& mit) : p(mit.p) {}
MyIterator& operator++() {++p;return *this;}
MyIterator operator++(int) {MyIterator tmp(*this); operator++(); return tmp;}
bool operator==(const MyIterator& rhs) {return p==rhs.p;}
bool operator!=(const MyIterator& rhs) {return p!=rhs.p;}
const int& operator*() const {return *p;}
int& operator*() {return *p;}

An alternative would be using templates to implement a single iterator class that can be specialized into the const and non-const iterators. I am currently doing that (i heard boost is doing that...). But, the templates get complex very quickly as I implement range, and then range of range (as in nested range based for loop).


I assume the iterator is named mit.

Using const mit as a substitute of const_mit (const_iterator) won't work, because const_iterator is not meant to be a constant iterator, but an iterator iterating over constant elements.

Also, with a const mit, you couldn't use modifying operators, like ++ or --, because these are non-const methods, modifying the iterator itself.

So, if you want to provide some sort of const_iterator, you won't get around implementing one.

Will the library user/developer get confused?

Finally, to answer your question: Yes, I think so, because of the different behaviour (and expectations) of a const iterator vs const_iterator.