Re: GHashTable and const

[Mark Mielke <mark mark mielke cc>]

BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> Yes, i'm aware of that. Const variables just seem to grow like
> mushrooms around const-accepting functions and those inevitably cause
> trouble. Inside the function with a const parameter, that parameter
> also only has to be passed to const parameter functions. That is
> another case where warnings has to be fixed with irritating casts.
>   

Why would a function taking a const parameter be calling a function with 
the parameter that isn't defined to take a const?

It may seem like a mushroom to you - to me it seems like a mine field 
*not* to use const. All compile time checking has this issue - and all 
compile time checks provide value. Which is worse? To realize that your 
supposedly const function is calling a non-const and having the compiler 
tell you about it? Or to not realize that your supposedly read-only 
function is doing modifications?

I prefer to use const, because I value what it provides. That it's 
imperfect is not a reason to avoid it.

The main issue with glib, though, is history. Most of the programming 
world is happy with using const, so I don't buy that the glib developers 
are smarter in their choice not to. The choice was wrong. But, it's 
water under the bridge. Life goes on. The question is now whether it's 
worth it to change - and I suspect the answer is no.

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke <mark mielke cc>