I have alway learned that const values are better. Also for maintaing it yourself since the compiler tells you when someting is overwritten (espessialy when you don't want it). But I do not maintain the code so ofcoures it is up to you guyz :)
I'll check the code for some pointers that can be made const and functions that can be marked static. As my contribution to the project :) Roeland On Saturday 21 June 2008 14:57:38 Dirk Stöcker wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Roeland Douma wrote: > > I was looking trough the svn code today. And I noticed some variables > > that could be made const. This is always nice since the compiler can then > > do some more optimalisation. I have tested them myself and did not notice > > anny odd behavoir. I'll check some more code when I get back home this > > afternoon. > > I don't think any of you changes really affects the code. But on the other > hand it makes maintaining harder, as having local variables const means > usually there is a real reason to have them const. Rather then removing > the const in the future when required by code changes a copy of the > variable to another local variable will be the result to be sure and > that's bad in terms of code quality in any case. > > Making pointers const, when the functions is not modifying the code > would be much better. This can reduce maintenance problems a lot. Or > making pass by value of structures into pass by const reference is a good > optimization. > > BTW: the two "static"s should be added nevertheless. This removes > superflous code. > > Ciao _______________________________________________ Merkaartor mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/merkaartor
