Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim i'd urge you to use const in your interface, but if you must ignore them, at least hide them behind a CONST macro which can be turned off with a compile flag. i've been using const in my C for a good few years now on several dozen platforms and not had the problems you describe with the string/stdlib functions - most standard headers use const correctly these days. On the upside const spots a few pointer howlers at compile time, simplifies making code re-entrant (has anyone mentioned the dreaded threading yet ?) and does help matters when burning code into ROM. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] Sent: 25 January 2004 01:30 To: Joe English Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans On Jan 24, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Joe English wrote: [on the subject of 'const'] > Even if you don't consider it useful, it's a good idea > to make interfaces const-correct anyway just to avoid > impedance mismatches with other parts of the system. Using const variables means is that I have to cast the bloody variables every time I want to call strcpy() or sprintf() or any other bloody thing. Which substantially uglifies the code. -Tim
|
