Ted Bullock <[email protected]> writes: > I've been curious about this for a long time; Would using > const uint16_t or uint32_t instead of proprocessor defines also make > sense anyway if the purpose is to stop the compiler from being > mysterious with implicit data types? I've never seen a compelling reason > to use defines when const variables get a degree of type protection and > misuse gets caught by the compiler much more quickly.
Since it's possible to take the address of a const variable, it needs to have a place where the value is stored (and only once!). It's also not always easy to pinpoint the exact type, so such changes are not low effort. Thanks Greg
