| ??? 08/06/07 12:07 Read: times |
#142809 - C++ ? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Oliver Sedlacek said:
I've been reading the C++ FAQs book, so I'm a convert to the concept of "const correctness" I don't know, but isn't 'const' one of the areas where C++ is quite significantly different from plain ANSI 'C'? In plain ANSI 'C', the 'const' qualifier is really quite weak - the only requirement is that the compiler gives a message if it can detect an attempt to write to a 'const' item. But I agree with the principle: always give the compiler as much help as you can - so, if you intend that an item should be read-only, why would you not give it the 'const' qualifier? |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| A Simpler Way? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Logical AND ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Shift? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I Agree. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another Option | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the simplest way | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| capitals | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I copyued what the OP used | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The common use of CAPs in C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| totally agree, however | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why are you rambling about variables... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not to me | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Variable capitalisation? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 'code 'never is | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Did not think it mattered. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Code modifier | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| both | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use both | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C++ ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Mixed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Extensions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Experience | 01/01/70 00:00 |