Prev: Activating JMX, tomcat5 and Java1.6
Next: Best way to do this?
From: Jorgen Grahn on 22 Jul 2010 07:41
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.c++ -- again.]

On Tue, 2010-07-20, Peter Duniho wrote:
> Christian Hackl wrote:
>> Peter Duniho ha scritto:
>>
>>> But C++ has it a bit worse, because "const" is not required even where
>>> applicable (never mind that it wasn't even around or in common use
>>> when a lot of the APIs that C/C++ programs use were created). So you
>>> could be in a context where "const" has been applied, you want to call
>>> something that is still within the spirit of "const", but you have to
>>> cast the "const" away because the thing you want to call didn't use
>>> "const".
>>
>> Maybe I'm just lucky, but I cannot even remember the last time I
>> actually had to use const_cast because of some broken (or legacy) C++ or
>> C API. How often do you really encounter this problem?
>
> I have successfully avoided using C++ to any significant extent for
> nearly a decade. In the 90's, it came up on a regular enough basis to
> dissuade me from making more than a half-hearted attempt to "const"-ify
> my code.
>
> Maybe it's not as big of a problem as it used to be.

Lots have happened since the 1990s. Quality APIs (C and C++) use const today.
(At least on Unix, where I do my work.)

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Activating JMX, tomcat5 and Java1.6
Next: Best way to do this?