你用const能做到什么程度?你只是在必要的时候才把函数变成const,还是从头到尾到处都用它?例如,想象一个简单的变异子,它接受一个布尔参数:
void SetValue(const bool b) { my_val_ = b; }
这个const真的有用吗?就我个人而言,我选择广泛地使用它,包括参数,但在这种情况下,我想知道它是否值得?
我还惊讶地发现,你可以在函数声明中的形参中省略const,但可以在函数定义中包含它,例如:
. h文件
void func(int n, long l);
. cpp文件
void func(const int n, const long l)
这有什么原因吗?这对我来说有点不寻常。
当参数按值传递时,Const是没有意义的,因为你不会修改调用者的对象。
通过引用传递时应优先使用Const,除非函数的目的是修改传递的值。
最后,不修改当前对象(this)的函数可以,也可能应该声明为const。下面是一个例子:
int SomeClass::GetValue() const {return m_internalValue;}
这是一个不修改应用此调用的对象的承诺。换句话说,你可以调用:
const SomeClass* pSomeClass;
pSomeClass->GetValue();
如果函数不是const,则会导致编译器警告。
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.