Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers. Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing
I always believed that temporary objects in C++ are automatically considered as const by the compiler. But recently I experienced that the following example of code:
I write a struct struct Tree{ struct Node *root; struct Node NIL_t; struct Node * const NIL;//sentinel } I want
After reading this, it is my understanding that declaring a method as const prevents it from accidentally modifying the class\'s member variables.
This is a newbie C/Objective-C questio开发者_C百科n :-) Let say I want a CGRectOne and a CGRectTwo constants.
I am familiar with structs and arrays in C, however I have no idea what is going on in the below code. The order for struct declaration is usually:
What is the design rationale behind allowing this const Foo& a = function_retur开发者_开发问答ning_Foo_by_value();
#ifndef QWERT_H #define QWERT_H const int x [] = {1, 2,}; const int z = 3; #endif #include <iostream>开发者_JAVA技巧;
if I have some expression on c++: const int x = 3; can I say that x is a variable? It seems very strange cause x is not variable cause I can\'t change it, thanks in advance for any expanations
Normally, if I need to detect whether a type is const I just use boost::is_const.However, I ran into trouble when trying to detect the const-ness of a nested type.Consider the following traits templat
加载中,请稍侯......