Stewart Stremler wrote:
>..
> My problem with const almost always comes down to not using it consistently,
> and then starting from the wrong side ("Oh, I think I'll make this a
> const. Whoops, that function doesn't take const, but now it needs
> to. Whoops, it passes that value on to a function that doesn't use
> const either!"). And when one is done inserting "const" in all the places
> that should have "const" in 'em.... the code has been uglified. Bleah.
>
> I dunno. It may be that I object to truncated (key)words, and the
> fundamental objection is merely an aesthetic one; coupled with the
> experience of playing chase-the-const across a codebase a few times,
> my reaction may be less rational and more emotional than I supposed.
Thanks for elaborating on this.
I think that const is kinda neat in function declarations
char *strcpy(char *dest, const char *src);
I personally, never felt too much urge to declare my (er..) variables as
const. Does that happen a lot?
Regards,
..jim
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
