你用const能做到什么程度?你只是在必要的时候才把函数变成const，还是从头到尾到处都用它?例如，想象一个简单的变异子，它接受一个布尔参数:
void SetValue(const bool b) { my_val_ = b; }
这个const真的有用吗?就我个人而言，我选择广泛地使用它，包括参数，但在这种情况下，我想知道它是否值得?
我还惊讶地发现，你可以在函数声明中的形参中省略const，但可以在函数定义中包含它，例如:
. h文件
void func(int n, long l);
. cpp文件
void func(const int n, const long l)
这有什么原因吗?这对我来说有点不寻常。
当前回答
我知道这个问题“有点”过时了，但当我遇到它时，其他人可能也会在未来这样做... ...我仍然怀疑这个可怜的家伙会在这里列出我的评论:)
It seems to me that we are still too confined to C-style way of thinking. In the OOP paradigma we play around with objects, not types. Const object may be conceptually different from a non-const object, specifically in the sense of logical-const (in contrast to bitwise-const). Thus even if const correctness of function params is (perhaps) an over-carefulness in case of PODs it is not so in case of objects. If a function works with a const object it should say so. Consider the following code snippet
#include <iostream>
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
class SharedBuffer {
private:
int fakeData;
int const & Get_(int i) const
{
std::cout << "Accessing buffer element" << std::endl;
return fakeData;
}
public:
int & operator[](int i)
{
Unique();
return const_cast<int &>(Get_(i));
}
int const & operator[](int i) const
{
return Get_(i);
}
void Unique()
{
std::cout << "Making buffer unique (expensive operation)" << std::endl;
}
};
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
void NonConstF(SharedBuffer x)
{
x[0] = 1;
}
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
void ConstF(const SharedBuffer x)
{
int q = x[0];
}
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
int main()
{
SharedBuffer x;
NonConstF(x);
std::cout << std::endl;
ConstF(x);
return 0;
}
附注:你可能会认为(const)引用在这里更合适，并提供相同的行为。嗯,对的。只是给出了与我在其他地方看到的不同的画面……
其他回答
我不会把const放在形参上——每个人都知道布尔值(而不是布尔&)是常量，所以添加它会让人们认为“等等，什么?”或者甚至认为你是通过引用传递形参的。
使用const时要记住的一点是，从一开始就将对象设为const要比稍后再尝试将它们放入要容易得多。
当你想要某些东西保持不变时，使用const -它是一个附加的提示，描述了你的函数做什么以及期望什么。我见过许多C API可以处理其中的一些，特别是那些接受C -string的API !
我更倾向于省略cpp文件中的const关键字，而不是头，但由于我倾向于剪切+粘贴它们，它们将同时保留在两个地方。我不知道为什么编译器允许这样做，我猜这是编译器的事情。最佳实践肯定是将const关键字放在两个文件中。
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.
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。
关于编译器优化:http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/081.htm
