I understand that most std library implementations choose to implement std::enable_shared_from_this by storing a std::weak_ptr in the base class. This leads to the following:
#include <memory>
class Foo : public std::enable_shared_from_this<Foo>
{
public:
std::shared_ptr<Foo> GetSharedBar() const
{
// returns shared_ptr<const Foo> instead of std::shared_ptr<Foo>
return shared_from_this();
// Error in VC++2019 due to mismatch.
}
};
It seems clear to me that despite needing to update the reference count, shared_from_this() is not actually mutating the target object. This seems like an ideal use for mutable, so that shared_from_this() can be marked as const with respect to the derived object.
Why isn't it implemented with mutable?
To elucidate the answer below: it is implemented with the std::weak_ptr marked mutable, but that only allows the std::weak_ptr to be mutated, not for us to hand off a non-const to someone else.
These both fail to compile:
But they both work if you remove
constfrom the functions. The issue is that in aconstmember function, thethispointer is aconstpointer.As another example, take this:
Clearly you are not allowed to hand a
constmember off to somebody else in a non-conststate. This also goes for thethispointer, and in aconstfunctionthisisconst.