Normalizing Const Syntax.

[Bill Baxter]

Koroskin Denis wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:53:56 +0400, Bill Baxter 
> <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote:
> 
>> Janice Caron wrote:
>>> However, there is a reason why Walter has not made const-at-the-front
>>> illegal, which is that /he likes it/. And so far as I can gather, the
>>> reason that he likes it is because it means he is able to write
>>>      const
>>>     {
>>>         /* lots of functions */
>>>     }
>>
>> Which is a horrible syntax in my opinion.  Something to be avoided 
>> rather than something to bend over backwards trying to support.  Why 
>> should a big block-o-const only affect the 'this' arguments of 
>> functions inside of it?  Not to mention, the bigger the block-o-const, 
>> the more likely it is that someone reading the code will not see the 
>> const label.
>>
>> It's a bad idea in my opinion.
>>
>>
>> --bb
>>
> 
> The same could be said for private or static methods. Do you propose we 
> should get rid of these, too?
> IMO, it's a matter of style. You can but, you don't have to use that 
> syntax.

Those are different because private or static does indeed apply to the 
methods as a whole, and not just one particular parameter of the methods.

But anyway, I have started to loathe all the nonlocal ways to set 
protection levels, because I'm forever looking up and down in the class 
to try to figure out what's public and what's not.  I'm not going to say 
we have to get rid of those, but there better be a really compelling 
reason to add more.

--bb