why can't a static member function be declared as const ?
We can declare a non-static member function as const,
to indicate that it does not modify the non-mutable data
members of a class. In the same way, is there a provision
to indicate that a static member function does not modify
the static data members but only uses their values ?

Kindly explain.

Thanks
V.Subramanian

On Nov 13, 8:43 am, "subramanian10...@yahoo.com, India"
yahoo.com> wrote:

Slightly imprecise: The const-qualification specifies whether
the member function does potentially modify a given instance
of a class, more specifically a const member function can be
thought of having a hidden this-pointer to the *const* class
type and acting with this pointer. From this we can easily
recognize that mutable operations conflict with this const-
qualification. Static member functions don't have any this
pointer.

On Nov 13, 3:43 pm, "subramanian10...@yahoo.com, India"
yahoo.com> wrote:

I think one reason to use const member function is that if the
function is called via a const class object, then there shall be some
way to inform the compiler that "this function does not modify the
object". But a static member function call don't need a object of that
class. So I don't think there is a need for const static member
function.

If you don't want a static member function modify a static member,
just take some care not to modify. Or you may use a const reference to
that static data member inside you static member function.

On 13 Nov, 10:43, "subramanian10...@yahoo.com, India"
yahoo.com> wrote:

It would be pointless, because you can easily remove
const without a cast.

struct foo
{
static void bar() const;
int i;
};

int & get_foo_i() { return foo::i; }

Daniel Krügler wrote: