Re: auto and const_iterators

[John W. Eaton]

On 05/02/2018 06:06 PM, Rik wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 02:52 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> > Either solution is OK with me, but I see more lines that remove
> > const_iterator than iterator.  Are the only ones we have to change the
> > ones where the object itself is not const but we were accessing elements
> > with a const_iterator?
>
> That's right.  It's only when we want to confirm to the compiler that the
> access should be read-only which is only necessary for a mutable object.
> If the entire object is const already then all accesses are necessarily
> read-only.

OK, I can fix this, but is there an easier way to find them other than 
manually looking at each of the instances where a const_iterator 
declaration was replaced by auto?

jwe