Const correctness (was Re: Oppinion on 'least priviledge', 'constcorrectness', etc.)
in [Java Programming]
|
Prev: Last Call for Papers Reminder (extended): International Conference on Soft Computing and Applications ICSCA 2010
Next: Const correctness (was Re: Oppinion on 'least priviledge', 'const correctness', etc.)
From: Jorgen Grahn on 20 Jul 2010 10:18 ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.c++. Neither the Java nor the comp.programming people want to read about const correctness, I'm sure.] On Tue, 2010-07-20, Alexander wrote: > Wherever I find something on the topic, these are considered positive. Only these two, or do you include a number of other things under "etc", unknown to us? > Why? I only find it time-consuming. Could you respond (preferably on > comp.programming) why it can be considered as such, but motivated, > that is without responses like "it's good software engineering > practice", "it's just better", etc... Const specifically: a language feature I really like. I guess you can say that it adds another dimension to the type system. It's good for the same reasons that the rest of the static typing is good. E.g. that we can have have Foo* and Bar*, not just void*. You make more information about your intentions explicit, in the code, for the benefit for the reader. And the compiler can check it. > I'm a learner, and I think now > is the best time to shape out practices and priorities. Yes. For const, you don't really have a choice -- if you refuse to use it, you'll be in constant conflict with other programmers working on the code. There are still, I think, old C programmers who reject const, but I never heard of a C++ programmer who did. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
From: Esmond Pitt on 21 Jul 2010 21:17
On 21/07/2010 1:50 PM, Lew wrote: > Lew wrote: >>> Don't be so sure. Java has 'final', which isn't exactly the same as >>> 'const' but is similar > > Esmond Pitt wrote: >> It's not really all that similar. > No one is saying that 'final' and 'const' are the same. If you think > that's my point, you haven't been reading my posts. I don't. I think you are saying, several times, that they are similar. I think they are really different. > But they are similar And here you are saying it again. > insofar as both prevent > change to the variable to which they're attached. And no further. As I said, 'const' implies a great deal more than that. So much more that I can't accept that they are 'similar'. |