Anton Fokin wrote: > > Nice. Was there a reason to put consts? Does it improve anything except > making c++ funs happy? It is OK if you introduce non-compatible changes > which can be easily seen when you recompile your code but in the case of > const a compiler does not issue any warning on const and non-const > "overloaded" functions. It is Ok if a user plays with one class and can > easily see that someting is going wrong at run time. Unfortunately some > people develop more complex things. Using const makes sense in C++ it's not a thing invented to complicate C++ programming. Good discussion about this is in More Effective C++ from Scott Meyers. Radovan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 11:51:21 MEST