On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 23:52 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I don't get it, can you explain how exactly?
The function prototypes will be different, so you won't be able to
assign without casting, or else changing the type of thing holding the
function pointer.
___
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Andrew W. Nosenko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Andrew W. Nosenko
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Sorry for long delay, but could you please e
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Andrew W. Nosenko
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sorry for long delay, but could you please explain, how changing from
>>g_hash_table_size (GHashTable *hash_table);
>> to
>>
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Andrew W. Nosenko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for long delay, but could you please explain, how changing from
>g_hash_table_size (GHashTable *hash_table);
> to
>g_hash_table_size (const GHashTable *hash_table);
> would to break any C++ code? It
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Alberto Mardegan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If I proposed a patch which adds some "const" here and there, would that be
>> discarded a priori, or would it undergo a serious con
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 22:42 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
[snip]
> Why would a function taking a const parameter be calling a function with
> the parameter that isn't defined to take a const?
Because const means what you say it means. The compiler can't know. For
instance, an internal cache or refere
2008/7/4 Alberto Mardegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ext Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
>
>> Now, that's for C. For C++ passing a const pointer to a function
>> expecting a non-const pointer actually a hard *error*[1]. So the API
>> couldn't be changed in this way without likely breaking any C++ applicat
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Yes, i'm aware of that. Const variables just seem to grow like
mushrooms around const-accepting functions and those inevitably cause
trouble. Inside the function with a const parameter, that parameter
also only has to be passed to const parameter functions. That is
another
Yes, i'm aware of that. Const variables just seem to grow like
mushrooms around const-accepting functions and those inevitably cause
trouble. Inside the function with a const parameter, that parameter
also only has to be passed to const parameter functions. That is
another case where warnings has t
ext Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
Now, that's for C. For C++ passing a const pointer to a function
expecting a non-const pointer actually a hard *error*[1]. So the API
couldn't be changed in this way without likely breaking any C++
application that uses these glib data structures.
Yes, but this
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Alberto Mardegan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ext Havoc Pennington wrote:
Whether you agree or not, the GLib types don't use const in their API,
so if you try to use const yourself on these types you're just signing
up for pain. It won't work
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Alberto Mardegan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ext Havoc Pennington wrote:
>> Whether you agree or not, the GLib types don't use const in their API,
>> so if you try to use const yourself on these types you're just signing
>> up for pain. It won't work well or do anyt
Havoc Pennington wrote:
I'm not a GTK maintainer, but one problem with this is backward
compatibility. Adding const can certainly break previously-working
code, especially C++ code.
This was an issued once faced when people migrated from K&R C to ANSI C.
Nothing wrong with having a gconst t
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Alberto Mardegan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I proposed a patch which adds some "const" here and there, would that be
> discarded a priori, or would it undergo a serious consideration?
>
I'm not a GTK maintainer, but one problem with this is backward
compat
Morten Welinder wrote:
"const" in C does not propagate as usefully as you would like. Therefore,
the following sniplet is not violating C rules:
struct Foo { int *x; };
int foo (const struct Foo *p) { *(p->x) = 1; }
I don't think most languages propagate a "const"-like type. However, at
lea
ext Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
This is in the archives a bunch of times, for example the first google
hit I got was
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2001-May/msg00485.html
Ah, sorry, I only researched about GHashTable.
Whether you agree or not, the GLib types don't use const in
Hi,
This is in the archives a bunch of times, for example the first google
hit I got was
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2001-May/msg00485.html
Whether you agree or not, the GLib types don't use const in their API,
so if you try to use const yourself on these types you're just signi
>> Because const in C is crippled, unlike in C++ where its actually useful.
>>
>
> Soory, but you aren't right:
Yes, he is, but you did not understand him. He was making a language
comment, not an implementation comment.
"const" in C does not propagate as usefully as you would like. Therefore,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Ross Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 14:21 +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On 03/07/2008, Alberto Mardegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Hi, quick
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 14:21 +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 03/07/2008, Alberto Mardegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi, quick question: why do methods like
> >>
> >> g_hash_table_size()
> >> g_hash_ta
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 03/07/2008, Alberto Mardegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi, quick question: why do methods like
>>
>> g_hash_table_size()
>> g_hash_table_lookup()
>>
>> don't accept a "_const_ GHashTable *" as first paramet
On 03/07/2008, Alberto Mardegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, quick question: why do methods like
>
> g_hash_table_size()
> g_hash_table_lookup()
>
> don't accept a "_const_ GHashTable *" as first parameter?
Since GHashTable is an opaque data type you don't have to worry about it.
Rui
_
Hi, quick question: why do methods like
g_hash_table_size()
g_hash_table_lookup()
don't accept a "_const_ GHashTable *" as first parameter?
TIA,
Alberto
--
http://www.mardy.it <-- Geek in un lingua international!
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk
23 matches
Mail list logo
