home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!darwin.sura.net!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU!maxtal
- From: maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller)
- Subject: Re: const on pass by value
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.182049.22985@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU
- Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au
- Organization: MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney
- References: <1992Jul24.151010.11969@PacBell.COM> <1992Jul25.071559.4236@uunet.uu.net!mole-end> <9220801.5026@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:20:49 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <9220801.5026@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
- >>
- >>It's not nitpicking. It's part of something called const correctness.
- >>Your program has it or doesn't. Programs that have it are almost immune
- >>to a certain large family of errors.
- >
- >Huh? In this example, it IS just nitpicking.
- >How could the presence or absence of const in the declaration for foo
- >affect the program's const correctness?
- >
- >For pass-by-value arguments, using const is a matter of taste.
- >Personally I don't bother: programs have been traditionally written without
- >const in these cases, and I don't see any reason to change.
- >(Besides, this avoids unnecessary typing :-)
-
- Isn't there a rule about EXACT matches for
- templates? (Anyone know the status here?)
-
- --
- ;----------------------------------------------------------------------
- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
- Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
- ;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
-