下面两行在功能上是等价的:

int foo (int a);
int foo (const int a);

显然，如果用第二种方式定义，就不能在foo对象体中修改a，但从外部看没有区别。

const真正有用的地方是引用或指针形参:

int foo (const BigStruct &a);
int foo (const BigStruct *a);

这就是说，foo可以接受一个大的参数，也许是一个千兆字节大小的数据结构，而不需要复制它。同时，它也告诉调用者:“Foo不会*改变参数的内容。”传递const引用还允许编译器做出某些性能决定。

*:除非它抛弃了const-ness，但那是另一篇文章。

我不会把const放在形参上——每个人都知道布尔值(而不是布尔&)是常量，所以添加它会让人们认为“等等，什么?”或者甚至认为你是通过引用传递形参的。

如果使用->*或。*操作符，这是必须的。

它会阻止你写出

void foo(Bar *p) { if (++p->*member > 0) { ... } }

我刚才差点就这么做了，但这可能不是你想要的结果。

我想说的是

void foo(Bar *p) { if (++(p->*member) > 0) { ... } }

如果我在Bar *和p之间放了一个const，编译器会告诉我。

const应该是c++的默认值。 像这样:

int i = 5 ; // i is a constant

var int i = 5 ; // i is a real variable

If the parameter is passed by value (and is not a reference), usually there is not much difference whether the parameter is declared as const or not (unless it contains a reference member -- not a problem for built-in types). If the parameter is a reference or pointer, it is usually better to protect the referenced/pointed-to memory, not the pointer itself (I think you cannot make the reference itself const, not that it matters much as you cannot change the referee). It seems a good idea to protect everything you can as const. You can omit it without fear of making a mistake if the parameters are just PODs (including built-in types) and there is no chance of them changing further along the road (e.g. in your example the bool parameter).

I didn't know about the .h/.cpp file declaration difference, but it does make some sense. At the machine code level, nothing is "const", so if you declare a function (in the .h) as non-const, the code is the same as if you declare it as const (optimizations aside). However, it helps you to enlist the compiler that you will not change the value of the variable inside the implementation of the function (.ccp). It might come handy in the case when you're inheriting from an interface that allows change, but you don't need to change to parameter to achieve the required functionality.

我倾向于尽可能使用const。(或其他适合目标语言的关键字。)我这样做纯粹是因为它允许编译器做额外的优化，否则它无法做。因为我不知道这些优化可能是什么，我总是这样做，即使它看起来很傻。

据我所知，编译器很可能看到一个const值形参，然后说:“嘿，这个函数无论如何都没有修改它，所以我可以通过引用传递并节省一些时钟周期。”我不认为它会做这样的事情，因为它改变了函数的签名，但它说明了这一点。也许它会做一些不同的堆栈操作之类的…重点是，我不知道，但我知道试图比编译器更聪明只会让我感到羞耻。

c++有一些额外的包袱，有常量正确性的思想，所以它变得更加重要。