On 10/24/2013 10:09 PM, Robert Ellenberg wrote:
> Thanks for your input. I think you're right about the second "const". I
> added it for the extra checking from the compiler, to prevent the dumb
> bugs from accidentally changing pointer. It's a lot of extra verbiage
> just for that one benefit, though.

The second const is fine, i think i'm just being lazy.  The additional 
checking that it gives you is valuable.

I retract my complaint!


> The reason I put the const after the type specifier is due to the
> right-to-left order for reading pointer declarations:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const-correctness#C.2B.2B_syntax

I was following the convention of the clockwise/spiral rule:

http://c-faq.com/decl/spiral.anderson.html

But as the wikipedia page says, both forms are equally valid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const-correctness#Simple_data_types

So it doesnt matter, you can use either one, and both the compiler and 
the folks reading the code will understand what you mean.

I look forward to your patch!


> You mentioned release 2.6; is there a release date / milestones for this
> next version?

There's no date, sorry.  There are two major features that still need to 
be reviewed (joints_axes, and the new-rtos work and all that comes with 
it).  Once those reviews are done and the branches are merged or not, 
we'll fork off a stabilization branch for 2.6, let it settle, and 
release when we stop finding bugs.  I dont know what date that will be.


-- 
Sebastian Kuzminsky

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from 
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Reply via email to