| |||||||||||||
Java 'final', C 'const'Java 'final', C 'const'Posted Nov 2, 2006 15:20 UTC (Thu) by jreiser (subscriber, #11027)In reply to: Buried in warnings by Asebe8zu Parent article: Buried in warnings If the final value is (or could be) assigned at declaration, then the C keyword const suffices. My own favorite candidate for compiler enhancement is a message, "warning: 'const' omitted". The compiler detected that there would be no complaints if the programmer supplied the keyword const.
(Log in to post comments)
Java 'final', C 'const' Posted Nov 2, 2006 21:16 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] The problem I run into time and time again with const in C is that there are too many functions in too many libraries which take a non-const pointer, even though they do not modify the pointed-to entity. Very annoying.
Pointer to pointer to const Posted Nov 3, 2006 1:40 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] That would be a fine idea, if you didn't run into "C++ Gotcha #32" all the time when trying to do this (it's just as much a gotcha in C as it is in C++). As long as you don't try to take the address of your const pointer, you're safe. But you can't mix const and non-const indirect pointers, because of aliasing problems. Of course said aliasing problems might all be hidden deep inside the library (and/or the imagination of the compiler) and users shouldn't have to care at all -- but if it causes a problem for the developer, they're far more likely to drop 'const' than to suppress compiler warnings with casts and hope everything is otherwise correct.
|
|||||||||||||