difference between logical and physical const-ness - c++

Question

What is the difference between these two terms, and why do I need mutable?

Answer 1

"Physical" constness comes from declaring an object const, and could, in principle, be enforced by placing the object in read-only memory, so it cannot change. Attempting to change it will cause undefined behaviour; it might change, or it might not, or it might trigger a protection fault, or it might melt the memory chip.
"Logical" constness comes from declaring a reference or pointer const, and is enforced by the compiler. The object itself may or may not be "physically" const, but the reference cannot be used to modify it without a cast. If the object is not "physically" const, then C++ allows you to modify it, using const_cast to circumvent the protection.
A mutable class member can be modified even if the class object itself (or the reference or pointer used to access it) is const. Examples of good uses of this are a mutex that must be locked during a read operation, and a cache to store the result of an expensive read operation. In both cases, the operation itself should be a const function (since it doesn't affect the visible state of the object), but it needs to modify the mutex or the cache, so these need to be mutable. It can also be abused to make the object visibly change when logically it shouldn't, so use it with care; only declare members mutable if they don't form part of the externally visible state.

Answer 2

You need mutable when there are fields in an object that can be considered "internal", i.e. any external user of the class cannot determine the value of these fields. The class might need to write to these fields even though the instance is considered constant, i.e. not changing.
Consider a hard drive; its cache is an example of such state. The cache is written to when data is read from the actual disk.
This is not possible to express cleanly in C++ without making the corresponding members mutable, to allow them to be changed even in methods marked const. As pointed out in a comment, you can always reach for the hammer and use a const_cast<> to remove the const-ness, but that is of course cheating. :)

Answer 3

Scott Meyers, Effective C++, Item 3:
Use const whenever possible
has an excellent discussion (with examples) on this topic. Its hard to write better than Scott!
Note also that physical-constness is also known as bitwise-constness.

Answer 4

Some code for people who want to try out the effects of physical constness theirselfes:
#include <type_traits>
using namespace std;
using type = int const;
type &f();
int main()
{
const_cast<remove_const_t<type> &>(f()) = 123;
}
#if defined(__GNUC__) || defined(__llvm__)
__attribute__((noinline))
#elif defined(_MSC_VER)
__declspec(noinline)
#endif
type &f()
{
static type i = 0;
return i;
}
Under Linux and Windows this program crashes until you drop the const-specifier with type.

Answer 5

I respectfully disagree with Mike Seymour's answer:
A member function of a class can be defined as a const function, meaning that it will not modify any internal state of the object (except for members that are marked mutable, which becomes an important issue when we talk later about "logical" const-ness). That is the actual definition of "physical" const-ness. But even though a function is marked const, it may be logically modifying the objects state. Consider the following example:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Foo
{
private:
int *ip;
public:
Foo(int i) {
ip = new int(i);
}
virtual ~Foo() {
delete ip;
}
void modifyState(int i) const {
*ip = i;
}
int getI(void) const {
return *ip;
}
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
Foo foo(7);
cout << foo.getI() << endl;
foo.modifyState(9);
cout << foo.getI() << endl;
return 0;
}
Prints:
7
9
Member function modifyState does not modify member ip, so it satisfies the requirements for physical const-ness. But who can argue that since it is modifying what ip points to that the logical state has not been changed? So even though this function satisfies the requirements for physical cont-ness, it does not satisfy logical const-ness since what function getI will return has been changed by the call to modifyState.
Conversely, we can physically modify an object's member, but the state of the object as it appears to the outside world via its interface has not changed. Consider the following example where const functions getCelsiusTemperature and getFahrenheitTemperature modify mutable state but do not modify the object's logical state:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Temperature
{
private:
mutable float temperature;
mutable bool is_celsius;
public:
Temperature(double temperature, bool is_celsius=true) {
this->temperature = temperature;
this->is_celsius = is_celsius;
}
double getCelsiusTemperature(void) const {
if (!this->is_celsius) {
// convert to Celsius:
this->temperature = (this->temperature - 32.0) * 5.0 / 9.0;
this->is_celsius = true;
}
return this->temperature;
}
const double getFahrenheitTemperature(void) const {
if (this->is_celsius) {
// convert to Fahrenheit:
this->temperature = this->temperature * 9.0 / 5.0 + 32.0;
this->is_celsius = false;
}
return this->temperature;
}
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
const Temperature t(100, true);
cout << t.getCelsiusTemperature() << endl;
cout << t.getFahrenheitTemperature() << endl;
cout << t.getCelsiusTemperature() << endl;
return 0;
}
Prints:
100
212
100