Follow-up Comment #1, patch #5825 (project pspp):
Some of this is fine. There are plenty of places where const could be used
that it isn't, and I don't object at all to adding it in those situations.
But I absolutely hate the idea of duplicating entire source files and
compiling them twice to have a "const" qualifier in one and not in the other.
It's ugly to look at, it wastes compile time, it wastes memory at runtime,
and it even potentially wastes time at runtime due to expanded cache
footprint. In return, I can't think of any corresponding benefit. Perhaps
we drop a cast or two, or avoid one or two warnings? Not at all worth it
IMO.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?5825>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
pspp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
