[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans

• To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>,"Joe English" <jenglish@f...>
• Subject: RE: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• From: "Paul Sumner Downey" <Paul.Downey@w...>
• Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:24:14 -0000
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <F30B3698-4ED5-11D8-B206-000A95A51C9E@t...>

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

• References:
  • Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Previous by thread: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Next by thread: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread