Morten Welinder wrote:
"const" in C does not propagate as usefully as you would like. Therefore,
the following sniplet is not violating C rules:
struct Foo { int *x; };
int foo (const struct Foo *p) { *(p->x) = 1; }
I don't think most languages propagate a "const"-like type. However, at
least in theory, I think const would allow:
struct Foo p;
p->x = malloc(sizeof(int));
foo(p);
printf("%d\n", *(p->x));
To optimize the second p->x to be equal to a value from a register used
during the initial assignment. If called in a tight inner loop with many
iterations, the effect could be more significant.
While I cannot change p->x, I can change what
That said, it still wouldn't hurt to add const for cases like g_hash_table_size
I prefer prototypes to document intent as best as possible, even if the
language does not allow for a direct match between intent and actual
implementation. :-)
But, this is probably a waste of a thread as glib has done what glib has
done.
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
