Looks good to me.

Out of pure interest, can you check if this actually improves any of the benchmarks?

Codecov Report

Attention: 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (ff7a45a) 57.24% compared to head (4a77a75) 57.24%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            trunk     #684   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   57.24%   57.24%           
=======================================
  Files          51       51           
  Lines        4350     4350           
=======================================
  Hits         2490     2490           
  Misses       1860     1860           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Looks good to me.

Out of pure interest, can you check if this actually improves any of the benchmarks?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. const shouldn't change the behaviour at all, it will only make those functions available in const context. In order to improve a benchmark, you would have to change the code at the call-site.

You should also be aware that removing const from a pub const function is a breaking change. Given the extensive use of the builder-pattern, this shouldn't be a concern, though.