Why does this need to return a const ValueTree object? It seems unnecessarily cruel...
Because if it returned a non-const ref then you could redirect it to point at a completely different tree, and IIRC that'd confuse the synchroniser logic..
Fair enough, but It's not very exciting getting a const ref back. How about return by value for this one?
What are you trying to do with it? You can always create a ValueTree from the reference to get/set properties (assuming you're not dealing with the listener list).
But you can already get a by-value copy from it, right?
ValueTree myCopy = syncThing.getRoot();
I was trying to use it as a parameter for applyChange...
Ah - turns out what I was trying to do was bonkers anyway. Best ignore/delete this thread.
Or leave it as a monument to my folly...