Christopher Smith wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >> Now, perhaps this would be a good time to gripe about 'const'? >> That probably gives more headaches than signed/unsigned warnings, no? >> > Wha? const is painless and avoids any number of a host of bugs that I > usually run in to in a non-const world. Indeed, one of the more painful > bits I find about Java is that "final" just can't accomplish the same > thing as const in most cases, which is particularly troublesome because > of Java's pass-by-reference nature. I often end up creating immutable > interfaces as a kludge. >
I guess I'm just feeling rebellious today. :-) Perhaps I'm remembering wrong, but T I think there were discussions once before that interfacing different libraries could be annoying when functions treated a parm as const but didn't include const in the prototype -- I guess it might be common in oldish libs? Or maybe the annoyance came about when libs got updated to include the const, thereby breaking existing code? Or ...? Regards, ..jim (don't pay me too much nevermind, I'm just noisin') -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
