🚀 go-pugleaf

Alan Griffiths <aGriffiths@ma.ccngroup.com> wrote:
>In the interests of hiding implemetation details it seems to me that 
>a function that does not amend an object passed as a formal parameter 
>should be able to declare that parameter as "const" without requiring
>the same of a function prototype.
>
>For example:
>
>void f(int a);   // prototype in a shared header file.
>void f(const int a) {}  // Implementation of above.

   You are correct. This IS the case in ISO C. It also IS
the case in C++ now. In particular the declarations:

   void f(int);
   void f(int const);
   void f(const int);

declare the same function.
   

>This should not break any existing code.

    It can, but too bad -- it IS the status quo now in C++
and always was in ISO C.

>Is this a good idea, or am I missing something?

    I voted in favour of the change to the ARM to bring
C++ into line with ISO C so I guess I think it
is a good idea. :-)


-- 
John Max Skaller               voice: 61-2-566-2189
81 Glebe Point Rd              fax:   61-2-660-0850
GLEBE NSW 2037                 email: maxtal@suphys.physics.oz.au
AUSTRALIA                      email: skaller@maxtal.com.au




---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]