| [AD] On const and AL_CONST. |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [AD] On const and AL_CONST.
- From: StApostol <stapostol@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:36:04 +0300
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=NOONLjy8cXSt0gT8w5iNEy72K2D9GgggoigdQikgFAHZojL2lNpWBW33fcSzVuD3QIIofftT9RHyfZCt4QlU8/JXVsUmbk1tdAYoP6oSeTLwo1Q/38RB0thCjxQ6aOhXO7sG0gs5Fr7AxdM1PddpAveoZh236f6ngqzjAtqI7C4=
Throughout the Source there are 154 'const's (as reported by msvc).
Some of these are in comments, while most in the c++ fix wrapper; the
rest are sprinkled throughout the code, and many times used right
after an AL_CONST declaration (see file.c, line 586 for example).
If I remember correctly, the AL_CONST is useful because some platforms
do not support the const identifier. Is this still needed (does
allegro actually support - work on - any compilers that do not support
const)? If yes then I'll change all stray const references to AL_CONST
(but why aren't there any reports of problems with these references?)
If no, it would be nice to change all 'AL_CONST's to 'const's for the
sake of following the standards (and cleaning up the Source).