I never meant to say that one must put const ints in the declaration. Whether it is there or not, the caller is not
affected. My point was const ints are useful on the developer side. GNU Scientific Library and Intel and MKL use const ints for CBLAS function declarations. Hadn?t noticed it earlier. I?ve seen it being used in professional closed source code. People stumble upon this idea unintentionally (because it has been working silently for a long time and not all compilers warn). And then some like it and some don?t. Chetan From: petsc-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jed Brown Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 1:32 PM To: For users of the development version of PETSc Subject: Re: [petsc-dev] declaring argument as const basic type in PETSc On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:29, Chetan Jhurani <chetan.jhurani at gmail.com> wrote: can be avoided by putting const int in declaration as well. Right, but doing this is nonsense because it puts implementation details in a public header, the "anti-encapsulation". Just don't use const for value parameters. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110817/d56b5779/attachment.html>
