[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@textuality.com]
Sent: 25 January 2004 01:30
To: Joe English
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] 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
|
