On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> (a) the style is inconsistent > > This is good enough reason. I did grep sources and we indeed use > const_iterator > for end in most cases. > >> (3) I've read that compilers can apply more aggressive optimizations when >> more >> of the data is const. I'm not sure if this would apply here and even if it >> did > > That was my question because I don't think there is any difference here. > The fact that end is not modified anywhere in the loop will be quickly > discovered by compiler optimizations anyway.
Good point. > It should make difference when you constify parameter of function or similar. What about an iterator object? (that is, I'm no longer asking about "iterator vs. const_iterator" but now "const_iterator" vs. "const iterator const") I was going to change "const_iterator end" to "const_iterator const end" but it looks like the current style prefers "const_iterator end" so I guess I should leave it: $ git grep "const_iterator end" | wc -l 181 $ git grep "const_iterator const end" | wc -l 48 $ git grep ":iterator const end" | wc -l 14 $ git grep ":iterator end" | wc -l 69 I'm not sure what the current style says about changing "::iterator it" to "::const_iterator it" so I will leave that as well, although I wonder if there could be (theoretical) gains to implementing it. Thanks Pavel, Scott
