What are the use cases for having a function return by const value for non-builtin type?

c++ const-correctness
Graeme picture Graeme · Jun 10, 2011 · Viewed 9.7k times · Source

Recently I have read that it makes sense when returning by value from a function to qualify the return type const for non-builtin types, e.g.:

const Result operation() {
    //..do something..
    return Result(..);
}

I am struggling to understand the benefits of this, once the object has been returned surely it's the callers choice to decide if the returned object should be const?

Answer

Puppy picture Puppy · Jun 10, 2011

Basically, there's a slight language problem here.

std::string func() {
    return "hai";
}

func().push_back('c'); // Perfectly valid, yet non-sensical

Returning const rvalues is an attempt to prevent such behaviour. However, in reality, it does way more harm than good, because now that rvalue references are here, you're just going to prevent move semantics, which sucks, and the above behaviour will probably be prevented by the judicious use of rvalue and lvalue *this overloading. Plus, you'd have to be a bit of a moron to do this anyway.

Related questions

What is the reason behind cbegin/cend?

I wonder why cbegin and cend were introduced in C++11? What are cases when calling these methods makes a difference from const overloads of begin and end?

Read More
C++ Overloading Conversion Operators

I am trying to have a class that allows implicit casting to certain built in types, like unsigned long int and since I'm trying to do this as correct as possible (this is my first important project in C++), I …

Read More
How to call a non-const function within a const function (C++)

I have a legacy function that looks like this: int Random() const { return var_ ? 4 : 0; } and I need to call a function within that legacy code so that it now looks like this: int Random() const { return var_ ? newCall(4) : 0; } The problem …

Read More