Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 08:03:52PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
>> I found some inconsistencies that may have been the problem for Jürgen:
>> member functions declared with an "int" argument, but defined with an
>> "int const" argument
>
| That's fine. The toplevel const does not change the function signature,
| it's an implementation detail. Pretty much the same level as
>
| int i = 5; vs int const i = 5;
Right. I have turned on completely on this issue... so expect to see a
lot of const added in future patches from me.
- In delaration 'const' in POD (or value passed params) does not make sense.
- In definition it is just like a local variable. (and we want those const)
--
Lgb
