Add a const version of List::find#112660
Merged
Repiteo merged 1 commit intogodotengine:masterfrom Nov 12, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Ivorforce
approved these changes
Nov 12, 2025
Member
Ivorforce
left a comment
Ivorforce
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me.
This is needed because otherwise, callers of .find are forced to make their own method non-const (or the field mutable).
From what I've seen contributors do, i wouldn't be surprised if this already happened. Somehow, people often avoid fixing the underlying issue, piling a duct tape solution on top...
Contributor
|
Thanks! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is the exact same as the existing
List::find, but hasconstadded to the iterator, return type, and function signature, allowing usingList::findonconstLists. Previously, those lists would have to be non-const to use this function.I previously had this slipped into other PRs because it's a minor addition, but @Ivorforce suggested it was out of scope elsewhere, so I am opening a dedicated PR for this (see #111372 (comment)).