status update
2010-08-12 23:06:08.447226+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments
I remember 20 years ago ripping out "const"s because Microsoft's semantics were so messed up it wasn't worth the hassle. 2 decades later....
2010-08-12 23:06:08.447226+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments
I remember 20 years ago ripping out "const"s because Microsoft's semantics were so messed up it wasn't worth the hassle. 2 decades later....
[ related topics: Humor Microsoft moron ]
comments in descending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2010-08-13 16:47:14.815226+00 by: markd
you can minus-out keywords you don't want autoexpanded.
const ipated -constipated
#Comment Re: made: 2010-08-13 15:34:27.491226+00 by: Dan Lyke
There have been a number of places recently where Google's spelling correction and such is getting too smart for its own good...
The particular issue I was grumbling about: Windows .NET has this construct called "properties", where things that look like variables can cause code underneath to run. Windows.Forms has a System.Graphics.Drawing.Point and ...PointF type, both of which have .X and .Y properties. I was trying to pass them by constness reference. The .X property's "get" code is not marked constness.
And, of course, this code is cross-platform, so I either have to start jumping through #define CONST const on real platforms and blowing it off on Windows, or just sighing and figuring out that if the optimizer is really good enough to see immutability over the function call, then it's probably also good enough to automatically figure on the constness of things.
#Comment You are... made: 2010-08-13 08:36:28.927226+00 by: spl [edit history]
... const-ipated?
Unrelated: This is one place where Google's spelling correction defeats the purpose of search. I can't find my own post, because Google wants me to search for "constipated" instead of "const ipated" even when I use quotes.