Hi Rutger, Hi George, We obviously agree with this orientation. We started implementing the most urgent changes (char* -> to const char*). As you say, it is better to plan these changes with a major release. Rene Brun Rutger van der Eijk wrote: > > Hi, > > This reminds me of a long standing isue on const declarations of as well > member functions as their arguments. As known and ppl reported before > (see e.g. roottalk98/1491.html) a lot of classes miss const-declararions > at several places where they should/could be placed. The reason for this > is (probably) mainly historical. Begin last year (1999), or was it even > 1998 Rene and Fons did already some cleanup on this, however still a lot > remains. Is there any plan to do a major cleanup on this? > > This has of course effect on existing (user) code, which might be broken. > However if it is not corrected it also results in more 'incorrect' code > being written (I e.g. quite often have to force a const_cast to be able to > call a incorrectly non const member of a root class.) Therefore it is > probably something which should happen in a major new release (V3.?). > > This whole thing is ofcourse not essential. So maybe I'm the only one > bothered by this. If not, I would like to (re)start a discussion on how > and when to improve the root classes on const-declarations. > > Cheers, Rutger
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 11:50:17 MET