in reply to Why is const x const not a const?
I think its not considered a contant becasue it isn't a contant, Its a calculation that needs evaluating.
While you could build optimisation into the compiler to calculate it and treat it as a constant, do you want to?. At what point to you stop?
I think if you want a constant use a constant
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^2: Why is const x const not a const?
by moritz (Cardinal) on Jan 22, 2012 at 14:25 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 22, 2012 at 15:16 UTC | |
by TomDLux (Vicar) on Jan 22, 2012 at 19:41 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 22, 2012 at 20:39 UTC |