Em 10/10/2012 10:09, Anthony Toft escreveu:
> But why? (the bane of my parent's existence)
>
> p++; only increments the value of the pointer on the stack, not the=20
> original pointer (&myInt or &anotherInt) nor the contents of the=20
> pointer.
>
> Here at work (I am 18 years into a software engineering career) I see=20
> examples of unnecessary const-ness all over the place, it causes any=20
> amount of trouble! The only time I have ever needed a <const_cast> is=20
> because of overzealous use of const parameters, the compiler will not=20
> remove const-ness without express permission, unlike adding it.
>
> Now, on the other hand, pointers to const objects or values ie "const=20
> int *p" I feel is an excellent idea, but once again, it's not the=20
> calling function saying "I won't allow him to change this" it's the=20
> called function saying "I promise I won't change it"


Useful to prevent the callee function from using the pointer as a
pointer to an array when it points to a single element.


Isaac

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.