做一个VB。NET程序员需要使用具有50多个公开函数的c++程序，以及偶尔使用const限定符的.h文件，很难知道何时使用ByRef或ByVal访问变量。

当然，程序通过在出错的行上生成一个异常错误来告诉您，但是随后您需要猜测2-10个参数中哪一个是错误的。

所以现在我有一个令人讨厌的任务，试图说服开发人员，他们应该真正定义他们的变量(在.h文件中)，以一种允许自动创建所有VB的方法。NET函数定义容易。然后他们会自鸣得意地说:“读……文档”。

我写了一个awk脚本，它解析一个.h文件，并创建所有的Declare Function命令，但没有指示哪个变量是R/O vs R/W，它只完成了一半的工作。

编辑:

在另一位用户的鼓励下，我添加了以下内容;

下面是一个(IMO)格式不佳的.h条目的例子;

typedef int (EE_STDCALL *Do_SomethingPtr)( int smfID, const char* cursor_name, const char* sql );

从我的脚本的结果VB;

    Declare Function Do_Something Lib "SomeOther.DLL" (ByRef smfID As Integer, ByVal cursor_name As String, ByVal sql As String) As Integer

注意，第一个参数中缺少“const”。如果没有它，程序(或其他开发人员)就不知道第一个参数应该传递“ByVal”。通过添加“const”，它使.h文件自文档化，以便使用其他语言的开发人员可以轻松地编写工作代码。

1. 根据我的评估，最佳答案是:

根据我的评估，@Adisak的答案是最好的答案。请注意，这个答案在某种程度上是最好的，因为除了使用合理和深思熟虑的逻辑之外，它还使用了最完善的真实代码示例。

2. 我自己的话(同意最好的答案):

For pass-by-value there is no benefit to adding const. All it does is: limit the implementer to have to make a copy every time they want to change an input param in the source code (which change would have no side effects anyway since what's passed in is already a copy since it's pass-by-value). And frequently, changing an input param which is passed by value is used to implement the function, so adding const everywhere can hinder this. and adding const unnecessarily clutters the code with consts everywhere, drawing attention away from the consts that are truly necessary to have safe code. When dealing with pointers or references, however, const is critically important when needed, and must be used, as it prevents undesired side effects with persistent changes outside the function, and therefore every single pointer or reference must use const when the param is an input only, not an output. Using const only on parameters passed by reference or pointer has the additional benefit of making it really obvious which parameters are pointers or references. It's one more thing to stick out and say "Watch out! Any param with const next to it is a reference or pointer!". What I've described above has frequently been the consensus achieved in professional software organizations I have worked in, and has been considered best practice. Sometimes even, the rule has been strict: "don't ever use const on parameters which are passed by value, but always use it on parameters passed by reference or pointer if they are inputs only."

3.谷歌的话(同意我和最好的答案):

(摘自“谷歌c++风格指南”)

对于通过value传递的函数形参，const对调用者没有影响，因此不建议在函数声明中使用。参见tow #109。

对局部变量使用const既不鼓励也不鼓励。

来源:谷歌c++风格指南的“const的使用”部分:https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Use_of_const。这是一个非常有价值的部分，所以请阅读整个部分。

请注意，“tow# 109”代表“本周小贴士#109:函数声明中有意义的const”，这也是一个有用的阅读。它提供了更多的信息，对要做的事情的规定性更少，并且在谷歌c++样式指南关于上面引用的const规则之前出现，但由于它提供的清晰性，上面引用的const规则被添加到谷歌c++样式指南中。

Also note that even though I'm quoting the Google C++ Style Guide here in defense of my position, it does NOT mean I always follow the guide or always recommend following the guide. Some of the things they recommend are just plain weird, such as their kDaysInAWeek-style naming convention for "Constant Names". However, it is still nonetheless useful and relevant to point out when one of the world's most successful and influential technical and software companies uses the same justification as I and others like @Adisak do to back up our viewpoints on this matter.

4. Clang的linter, Clang -tidy，有一些选项:

答:同样值得注意的是，Clang的linter, Clang -tidy，有一个选项，可读性-avoid-const-params-in-decls，描述在这里，以支持在代码库中强制不使用const的值传递函数参数:

检查函数声明的形参是否为顶级const。

声明中的Const值不会影响函数的签名，因此它们不应该放在那里。

例子:

Void f(const字符串);//错误:const是顶级的。 Void f(const string&);//好:const不是顶级的。

为了完整和清晰，我自己再举两个例子:

void f(char * const c_string);   // Bad: const is top level. [This makes the _pointer itself_, NOT what it points to, const]
void f(const char * c_string);   // Good: const is not top level. [This makes what is being _pointed to_ const]

B.它还有这个选项:readable -const-return-type - https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-const-return-type.html

5. 我的务实的方法是如何在这个问题上给出一个风格指南:

我只需复制粘贴到我的风格指南中:

[复制/ START纸浆]

Always use const on function parameters passed by reference or pointer when their contents (what they point to) are intended NOT to be changed. This way, it becomes obvious when a variable passed by reference or pointer IS expected to be changed, because it will lack const. In this use case const prevents accidental side effects outside the function. It is not recommended to use const on function parameters passed by value, because const has no effect on the caller: even if the variable is changed in the function there will be no side effects outside the function. See the following resources for additional justification and insight: "Google C++ Style Guide" "Use of const" section "Tip of the Week #109: Meaningful const in Function Declarations" Adisak's Stack Overflow answer on "Use of 'const' for function parameters" "Never use top-level const [ie: const on parameters passed by value] on function parameters in declarations that are not definitions (and be careful not to copy/paste a meaningless const). It is meaningless and ignored by the compiler, it is visual noise, and it could mislead readers" (https://abseil.io/tips/109, emphasis added). The only const qualifiers that have an effect on compilation are those placed in the function definition, NOT those in a forward declaration of the function, such as in a function (method) declaration in a header file. Never use top-level const [ie: const on variables passed by value] on values returned by a function. Using const on pointers or references returned by a function is up to the implementer, as it is sometimes useful. TODO: enforce some of the above with the following clang-tidy options: https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls.html https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-const-return-type.html

下面是一些演示上述const规则的代码示例:

参数示例: (有些是从这里借来的)

void f(const std::string);   // Bad: const is top level.
void f(const std::string&);  // Good: const is not top level.

void f(char * const c_string);   // Bad: const is top level. [This makes the _pointer itself_, NOT what it points to, const]
void f(const char * c_string);   // Good: const is not top level. [This makes what is being _pointed to_ const]

示例: (有些是从这里借来的)

// BAD--do not do this:
const int foo();
const Clazz foo();
Clazz *const foo();

// OK--up to the implementer:
const int* foo();
const int& foo();
const Clazz* foo();

复制/ PASTE黑的外星人探索铝

关键词:const在函数形参中的应用;编码标准;C和c++编码标准;编码规则;最佳实践;代码标准;Const返回值

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。

啊，一个棘手的问题。一方面，声明是一个契约，按值传递const参数确实没有意义。另一方面，如果查看函数实现，如果声明参数常量，则会给编译器更多优化机会。

由于形参是按值传递的，从调用函数的角度来看，是否指定const没有任何区别。将按值传递的参数声明为const基本上没有任何意义。

有时候(太频繁了!)我必须理清别人的c++代码。我们都知道别人的c++代码几乎从定义上看是一团乱子:)所以我要破译本地数据流的第一件事就是在每个变量定义中放入const，直到编译器开始吠叫。这也意味着const限定值参数，因为它们只是由调用者初始化的花哨局部变量。

啊，我希望变量默认是const的，而非const的变量是可变的:)