On Aug 17, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> Because it exposes a completely implementation detail to the public
> interface, (unnecessarily at that) So yes it is for philosophical reasons
> that we must reject this badly designed C standard.
>
> So you are saying that, according to the standard (Jed will certainly have a
> reference), that some value parameter
> declared as const can be assigned to in the function? If that is so, it is
> full of crap. Every compiler I have used bombed
> on that, and (lacking real authority) during my Google interview they thought
> this was good practice.
No I am not saying that. Not even close, how could you possibly have gotten
that from the sentence "Because it exposes a completely implementation detail
to the public interface, (unnecessarily at that) So yes it is for philosophical
reasons that we must reject this badly designed C standard."
Barry
>
> Matt
>
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 17, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Chetan Jhurani wrote:
> >
> > >> From: Jed Brown
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:38 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 11:34, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >>> But my question remains, should we const declare function arguments?
> > >>
> > >> No, the prototype should never use const for stack arguments (pointer to
> > >> const
> > >> is totally different and should be used anywhere that it is correct).
> > >>
> > >> I don't know any responsible libraries that const-ify value parameters in
> > >> prototypes. I think it most commonly arises from ignorance of, or
> > >> sloppiness
> > >> with, the actual semantics of the C language.
> > >
> > >
> > So by the standard a compiler should never bitch if in the function
> > definition it is declared const but in the extern prototype it is not
> > declared const? (This is an exception to the usual rule that the extern
> > arguments should match the definition arguments?)
> >
> > Just so I understand, this declaration and definition:
> >
> > void foo(const int a);
> >
> > void foo(const int a) {
> > }
> >
> > is legal, and would prevent a developer from accidentally assigning to a,
> > but we are outlawing it. I do not
> > see the rationale.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > > It is useful to have const pass-by-value parameters in function
> > > definitions. Not useful in the function declarations or for the
> > > caller.
> > >
> > > This is so that a developer does not assign to a passed-in int
> > > unintentionally. Almost all C and C++ compilers accept it and they
> > > error out if one does something like the code below. An exception
> > > is old IRIX compilers that emit a warning on using const pass-by-value
> > > and said it is meaningless to use them. I disagree.
> > >
> > > void f(const int n, int* j)
> > > {
> > > *j = n;
> > > n = 0; // error
> > > }
> > >
> > > Of course it is more useful for preventing bugs in more complex
> > > functions.
> > >
> > > Chetan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
> > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
> > experiments lead.
> > -- Norbert Wiener
>
>
>
>
> --
> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
> is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
> lead.
> -- Norbert Wiener
