Comment 3 for bug 1195436

On 28.06.2013 18:14, tmodes wrote:
> This issue can also cause trouble inside the script, if the Python
> script is using the Panorama object or the like in a not intended way.
> The const qualifier have their reason in the C++ code. If the script is
> first using a const object to write and then the next step will work
> with an undefined state of the whole object. So the script works not
> correctly. And in this case it does not help, if the C++ part is called
> later.
>
> So please respect that and do not post code where you know that you are
> violating the const qualifier. This is not a help for new developer.

Are you referring to my posting to hugin-ptx

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/hugin-ptx/G8WZwCPZo7c

If so, I think I have explicitly stated that one shouldn't do what I'm
doing in that plugin. It works, though - and it can be used standalone,
which is helpful with a workflow which uses mainly command-line tools.
When using the script standalone, I suppose all the
const-qualifier-violations are irrelevant.

I felt the chance that some people might benefit from something I made
which works for me is worth more than the violation of a rule which so
far hasn't produced any problems. So I posted it. It's not in the repo
because of your objections, and that's fair enough because I see your
point, but I can't see anything wrong in posting it on hugin-ptx.

Anyway, I don't think the python interface can feasibly be changed to
respect const qualifiers properly, so all we can do is tell hsi/hpi
users to beware and avoid modifying objects which are qualified const in
the C++ sources. Once we have a proper API the problem should disappear.

Kay