Question about an example from rule 9-3-1

[cxlin]

Maybe this extended and commented sample answers your question:

Code:

int32_t main(void)
{
  int32_t ret = 0;
  int32_t state = 0;
  nMISRA::C c(state);
  *c.getB() = 1;// const member changing the state of the object, triggering error condition below
  if (c.getState() != 0)
  {
    ret = -1;// error
  }
  return ret;
}

Well, `state` is not part of the object `c` (and likely not "class data"). It doesn't make much sense if this rule is to enforce that `getB` only return a const handler of `state`, because `state` is already in scope and could be modified without calling `getB`!

Code:

int32_t state = 0;
  nMISRA::C c(state);
  state = 1;
  if (c.getState() != 0)
  ...

So I don't think the original example follows the rationale of the rule and thus the original question.