On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:41:33 +0200 Tom Hacohen
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 07/11/11 07:32, David Seikel wrote:
> > Not sure what to de about those.  Caught between one API that needs
> > const, and one that doesn't.  In the end, the variable itself is
> > being changed, so it's not const.  I'll just cast to shut up the
> > damn compiler.
> 
> SPANK SPANK, don't just ignore the compiler warnings, suppressing
> them is bad, and counters the whole point of adding them in the first
> place.

In this case, the warnings are either saying that one of the functions
is defined wrong, or that I should just cast to const for one to shut
it up.

Personally I think that making a function parameter const when the whole
point of passing that parameter is for the function to change it is a
bit silly.  But constness has had it's own flame wars, and I did not
write either of the functions I'm calling.  shrugs

So right now, I'm just gonna cast and shut up the warning.  I'll leave
it to others to open up the entire const debate again if they desire.  I
don't really care, I'll just use what's there.  And If I have to cast
something to const to shut up something that is bitching about the non
constness of something that is REALLY not const, then so be it.

-- 
A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to