home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: thp@cs.ucr.edu (Tom Payne)
- Message-ID: <4hpseb$ld6@galaxy.ucr.edu>
- X-Original-Date: 8 Mar 1996 17:57:31 GMT
- Path: in2.uu.net!bounce-back
- Date: 09 Mar 96 04:37:06 GMT
- Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: 'const' in header files
- Organization: University of California, Riverside
- References: <AD5A0C5196681CA0D@sleipner.nts.mh.se>
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
- X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
- iQBFAgUBMUELQuEDnX0m9pzZAQFd/AGAmnmmpsNO0fSZVDUy4bp+O4cslbweEkOr
- 4nwfEAIX7qUwP6hC5voahp6JUTfZj7Uh
- =c4c/
-
- Lars Farm (lars.farm@nts.mh.se) wrote:
- :
- : Experts explained that this is as it should be for const float, but not for
- : const int (I know that the std does not talk about warnings). The point is:
- : The experts seems to find some kind of conceptual difference between named
- : constant floats and named constant ints, such that declaring const int K =
- : L; in a header is considered good practice but const float X = Y; in a
- : header is not and justifies a warning. I don't think there should be any
- : such difference.
-
- In fact, there is no such difference, as I understand it, in the way the
- standard treats float and int in this regard.
-
- Unused-variable warnings (a quality-of-implementation matter) are often
- less than helpful, e.g., I get such a warning every time I acquire mutual
- exclusion by creating an object whose constructor acquires the lock and
- whose destructor releases it, since the object is not accessed elsewhere.
-
- Tom Payne (thp@cs.ucr.edu)
- ---
- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: try just posting with ]
- [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
- [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
- [ Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
- [ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]
-