On Nov9, 2011, at 22:38 , Tom Lane wrote: > I think that "const" works materially better in C++ where you can > overload foo(struct *) and foo(const struct *) and let the compiler sort > out which is being called. In C, the impedance match is a lot worse, > so you have to pick and choose where const is worth the trouble.
Yup. In fact, C++ even *forces* you to use const in a few instances - you aren't, for example, allowed to call non-const member functions on temporary objects (i.e., myclass().nonconstmember() fails to compile where as myclass().constmember() works as expected). Also, in C++ const influences actual run-time behaviour - there's a very real difference in the life-time of temporary objects depending on whether they're assigned to a const or a non-const reference. So, while C++ and C are similar in a lot of aspects, the situation regarding const is very different. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
