in reply to Re^11: Psychic Disconnect and Object Systems
in thread Psychic Disconnect and Object Systems

Which I've comprehensively demonstrated is utter drivel.

No, you only demonstrated it's the case for constants, which wasn't one of the three!

When you're done lying, run the following programs: 

#include <stdio.h>

int main() {
   int i;
   for (i=0; i<2; ++i) {
      const int j = i;
      printf("%d\n", j);
   }

   return 0;
}

[download]
#include <stdio.h>

int f(const int k) {
   printf("%d\n", k);
}

int main() {
   int i;
   for (i=0; i<2; ++i) {
      f(i);
   }

   return 0;
}

[download]

Unless you can demonstrate that people don't consider "j" and "k" to be read-only, you haven't demonstrated anything.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^13: Psychic Disconnect and Object Systems
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 17, 2011 at 19:37 UTC

    This has no relevance to the original discussion.

    The fact that you are confusing the C keyword const with the programming concept of "Constant (programming), a value that, unlike a variable, cannot be reassociated with a different value" isn't my problem.

    To wit: in your entirely irrelevant examples above the const variable j and the const parameter k are reassociated with two different values each.

    And although the language allows you to define const ints, you should know better.

    Ints are passed by value, so there is no point in making them const. modifications cannot possibly leak scope anyway. Bad code is bad code, regardless of what point you thought you were trying to make with it.

    Now please. If you cannot stick to the subject, just stop eh?

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      The fact that you are confusing the C keyword const with the programming concept of "Constant (programming), a value that, unlike a variable, cannot be reassociated with a different value" isn't my problem.

      No, I simply said they are read-only values create at run-time. Where do you get this stuff?

      Now please. If you cannot stick to the subject, just stop eh?

      You were saying that read-only attributes weren't read-only if they are created at run-time. I provided counter-examples. Anything to add?

[reply]
      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom