Am Mittwoch 19 März 2008 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Silence 6 gcc warnings about using const on a return type. These were a mix > of int and bool. Even though this is different than the void case, I think > removing the const still makes sense.
Let's see... we've got a const on an elementary datatype which is not a reference. How should changing that value ever influence the method which returned it? There's no way to do that. For an object it's a different matter because it could e.g. modify a private static member and thus have a side effect. const void is of course pure nonsense. Should only happen due to macro or template instantiations putting in void I guess. Bye, David _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
