The copy assignment operator has the usual signature:
my_class & operator = (my_class const & rhs);
Does the following signature have any practical use?
my_class const & operator = (my_class const & rhs);
You can only define one or the other, but not both.
Best Answer
The principle reason to make the return type of copy-assignment a non-const reference is that it is a requirement for "Assignable" in the standard.
If you make the return type a
const
reference then your class won't meet the requirements for use in any of the standard library containers.