«

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:44:31 +0500, arnuld <>
wrote:


snip

>so, in case of #define or enum:
>
> a C compiler can replace a #define/enum with its value
> (at compile time), and can use that value (which
> it knows) where a compile time constant is required.

As far as #define is concerned, after the preprocessor gets done
substituting everything, the compiler will never see the #define name,
only the substituted value. Therefore, the compiler *must* use the
substituted value. If the substituted token is a self defining term,
then it can be used where a compile time constant is required.


Remove del for email

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:04:49 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst->
wrote:
<snip>
> I don't think pointers would be a problem. For example, C++ did
> change the semantics of const. In essence, if an object is declared

including a 'static' (classwide) data member

> "const" and its initializer is a constant expression, then any

and of an integer or enumeration type (in C++ enum types are distinct,
not just aliases for integer types as they are in C)

> reference to the object is a constant expression. This allows <snip>

But most of the places C (or C++) requires a constant expression do
require integer (constant expression), including the example you gave
of a case label, and this feature is enough for those.

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.net

David Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:04:49 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst->
> wrote:
> <snip>
>> I don't think pointers would be a problem. For example, C++ did
>> change the semantics of const. In essence, if an object is declared
>
> including a 'static' (classwide) data member
>
>> "const" and its initializer is a constant expression, then any
>
> and of an integer or enumeration type (in C++ enum types are distinct,
> not just aliases for integer types as they are in C)
>
>> reference to the object is a constant expression. This allows <snip>
>
> But most of the places C (or C++) requires a constant expression do
> require integer (constant expression), including the example you gave
> of a case label, and this feature is enough for those.
>
Which feature?

--
Ian Collins.

I have always found that using const is only a choice rather than a
necessity. But this is just my opinion, I'm sure the experts here will
differ.

pereges wrote:

> I have always found that using const is only a choice rather than a
> necessity.

Yes. Most things in life are just choices.

> But this is just my opinion, I'm sure the experts here will
> differ.

The point of const (in C) is to help the compiler to do more checks on
your source. Consider this trivial program:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void) {

long double pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795029L;
long double r;

puts("Enter radius of circle:");
scanf("%Lf", &r);
printf("Area of the circle is: %Lf\n", pi * (r * r));
return 0;
}

Now imagine this as a part of a much larger program or function.
Obviously 'pi' holds the value of a constant and should not be changed.
However if some other code in your program happens to modify 'pi' your
compiler will silently accept the modification and your program will
start giving you wrong or inaccurate results. This is where
qualifying 'pi' with const will start paying off. Now anywhere a direct
change is made to 'pi' the compiler will give you a diagnostic warning
you of it, so you can correct the code and prevent undefined behaviour.

As someone else said, const may appear rather meritless for small,
one-man programs, but it will start paying dividends when the program
grows larger and is developed by a team, even in spite the quirkiness
of C's const.

PS. You can still attempt to write to a const object and evade compiler
warnings by writing through a pointer, but that's far less likely to
happen in real code than direct in-advertant modification.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:52:17 +1200, Ian Collins <ian->
wrote:

> David Thompson wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:04:49 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst->
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> I don't think pointers would be a problem. For example, C++ did
> >> change the semantics of const. In essence, if an object is declared
> >
> > including a 'static' (classwide) data member
> >
> >> "const" and its initializer is a constant expression, then any
> >
> > and of an integer or enumeration type (in C++ enum types are distinct,
> > not just aliases for integer types as they are in C)
> >
> >> reference to the object is a constant expression. This allows <snip>
> >
> > But most of the places C (or C++) requires a constant expression do
> > require integer (constant expression), including the example you gave
> > of a case label, and this feature is enough for those.
> >
> Which feature?

The feature of C++ that Keith described and I slightly corrected, that
a const variable(!) of integer or enum type initialized by a constant
expression is acceptable in a constant expression. (And the which, or
something like it, the upthread discussion suggested for C.)

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.net