Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:10313 comp.std.c++:411
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!fernwood!dumbcat!marc
From: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us (Marco S Hyman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: const is not object-oriented
Message-ID: <225@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>
Date: 11 Nov 90 21:04:14 GMT
References: <1990Nov9.181408.23110@odin.corp.sgi.com>
	<1990Nov9.210404.29139@relay.wpd.sgi.com>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++
Organization: MH Software, Hayward, Ca.
Lines: 19

In article <1990Nov9.210404.29139@relay.wpd.sgi.com> pal@sgi.com writes:
    On my previous project, we moved a fairly large program (25K lines)
    from C++ 1.2 to 2.0, and decided to tighten up the interfaces with
    const.  It turned out to be a much larger underatking than we
    anticipated, because of the very stringent restrictions that storage
    const implies.  However, the result was definitely a much cleaner and
    more understandable program.

A question from the curious -- did adding const to the interface find any
problems/holes/bugs?  I believe that using const, i.e. forcing a class
designer to think about the constness of each interface, is a GoodThing.  I
also do not doubt that the program was better as a result of the effort to
clean it up.  But was it worth the effort to fix up old, presumably working,
code?

// marc
-- 
// marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us
// {ames,decwrl,sun}!pacbell!dumbcat!marc