Re: [AD] New patch for `const'-correctness

[Laurence Withers <lwithers@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In reply to Peter Wang (Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>):
>There are a couple of references to `const' which I think should be 
>`AL_CONST'.

You are right; that is me being lazy.

>  Attached is another patch (against CVS) to be applied which 
>fixes some `const'-related warnings on Linux/X.  Tested by compiling 
>with first with AL_CONST defined then not.

Out of interest, do you think it would be wiser to simply enable
AL_CONST for all compilers, only deselecting when it does not work?
Feedback from several people has indicated that all the compilers they
know about support const.

>  Someone else will probably 
>have to do the same for DOS and Windows.

No warnings on DOS / DJGPP (gcc 2.95.2).

>BTW, according to ahack, "(PTR*)" should be "(PTR *)".

Sorry; this is a C++ convention. Guess which language I write in? :-)
However, declaring pointers as:

   type* ptr = 0;

and not

   type *ptr = 0;

is better, since you can see that `*' is part of the typename and not
part of the variable (ie. the dereferencing operator). From some of the
source code I have looked at, many experienced C programmers also use
this notation.

On an off-topic note, is there some utility available for reformatting
whitespace? I find Allegro's source unreadable at times due to the way
the indentation jumps all over the place...

Bye for now,
-- 
Laurence Withers, lwithers@xxxxxxxxxx
                http://www.lwithers.demon.co.uk/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature