如果使用->*或。*操作符，这是必须的。

它会阻止你写出

void foo(Bar *p) { if (++p->*member > 0) { ... } }

我刚才差点就这么做了，但这可能不是你想要的结果。

我想说的是

void foo(Bar *p) { if (++(p->*member) > 0) { ... } }

如果我在Bar *和p之间放了一个const，编译器会告诉我。

在你提到的情况下，它不会影响API的调用者，这就是为什么它不常做(并且在头文件中也没有必要)。它只影响函数的实现。

这并不是一件特别糟糕的事情，但考虑到它不会影响您的API，它的好处并不是那么大，而且它增加了类型，所以通常不这样做。

啊，一个棘手的问题。一方面，声明是一个契约，按值传递const参数确实没有意义。另一方面，如果查看函数实现，如果声明参数常量，则会给编译器更多优化机会。

If the parameter is passed by value (and is not a reference), usually there is not much difference whether the parameter is declared as const or not (unless it contains a reference member -- not a problem for built-in types). If the parameter is a reference or pointer, it is usually better to protect the referenced/pointed-to memory, not the pointer itself (I think you cannot make the reference itself const, not that it matters much as you cannot change the referee). It seems a good idea to protect everything you can as const. You can omit it without fear of making a mistake if the parameters are just PODs (including built-in types) and there is no chance of them changing further along the road (e.g. in your example the bool parameter).

I didn't know about the .h/.cpp file declaration difference, but it does make some sense. At the machine code level, nothing is "const", so if you declare a function (in the .h) as non-const, the code is the same as if you declare it as const (optimizations aside). However, it helps you to enlist the compiler that you will not change the value of the variable inside the implementation of the function (.ccp). It might come handy in the case when you're inheriting from an interface that allows change, but you don't need to change to parameter to achieve the required functionality.

确实没有理由将值形参设为“const”，因为函数只能修改变量的副本。

使用“const”的原因是如果你通过引用传递更大的东西(例如有很多成员的结构体)，在这种情况下，它确保函数不能修改它;或者更确切地说，如果您试图以常规方式修改它，编译器将报错。它可以防止它被意外修改。

总结:

通常情况下，const的值传递是无用的，最多是误导。从GOTW006 但是您可以像处理变量一样在.cpp中添加它们。 注意，标准库不使用const。例如std::vector::at(size_type pos)。对标准库来说足够好的东西对我来说也是好的。