On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] What do you believe is the proper const-correct way to write > previousSibling() and related methods? > A priori, I think the correct way is this: > > Node* previousSibling() { return m_previous; } > > I could also be convinced that the following is technically more correct, > though in a way that is completely > useless for our code base at present: > > const Node* previousSibling() const { return m_previous; } > Node* previousSibling() { return m_previous; } > > What do you think is the right way to do it? One of these? Something else? > [...] > Well one big problem right now (just from scanning the core DOM classes) is > that we have a lot of clearly > broken use of const. We could (a) leave it as-is, (b) remove the incorrect > use of const, or (c) deploy proper > const-correctness. it seems like you are against (b), but I cannot tell if > you advocate (a) or (c).
I would *prefer* to deploy proper const correct accessors, so (c). However, in the interests of pragmatism I think that it would be reasonable to at least remove the improper uses of const (b). >From the tone of the initial e-mail it sounded like there was some desire to get rid of const declarations across the board. I would be opposed to this change. However, I concede that improper use of const is worse than no const declaration, and would support your (b) case (though I would prefer (c)!). -Brent _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
