const is an overrated concept that is a source of extra typing and maintenance
in [C++]
|
Prev: ANNOUNCE: UPCRC Illinois Summer School on Multicore Programming
Next: performance of hash_map in combination with strings on vstudio 2003
From: Peter C. Chapin on 30 Mar 2010 11:23 Seungbeom Kim wrote: > I was saying that I was a bit hesitant to add or remove > const depending on the implementation detail. Even though it does not > affect the interface. Perhaps it's because, though const in the > parameters for a function definition belongs to the realm of > implementation detail, it doesn't look so or feel so; it is not buried > in the function body but stands out too much in the declaration line. Yes, I can see what you mean here. Declaring function parameters const does make the const look more significant than it is. I suppose it's a quirk(?) of the way C++ is defined. I know that in Ada, for example, "in parameters" are automatically treated as constants in the subprogram body. If you want to modify them you have to make a copy of them. > In addition, the simpler the function is, the more cluttered it makes > the function to add const, and the less useful. I agree that the usefulness of the practice diminishes as the functions get simpler. With that in mind one might say that any function complicated enough to benefit from aggressive local const declarations is too complicated and should be split into smaller functions. I could probably be sold on that. Peter -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] |