Revision as of 14:41, 25 December 2020 edit Rqndom (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,105 edits Reverted good faith edits by Afitterling (talk): This is already mentioned in section 'Other languages' (does not need to be in the lead section) Tags: Twinkle Undo ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:43, 3 December 2021 edit undo Rlink2 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 309,868 edits m →History: archive link repair, may include: archive.* -> archive.today, and http->https for ghostarchive.org and archive.org (wp:el#Specifying_protocols) Tag: AWB Next edit →
Line 341: The first use, as a scoped and typed alternative to macros, was analogously fulfilled for function-like macros via the <code>inline</code> keyword. Constant pointers, and the <code>* const</code> notation, were suggested by Dennis Ritchie and so adopted.<ref name="siblings" /> <code>const</code> was then adopted in C as part of standardization, and appears in [[ANSI C\|C89]] (and subsequent versions) along with the other type qualifier, <code>volatile</code>.<ref>[[Dennis M. Ritchie]], "[http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/chist.html The Development of the C Language] {{webarchive \|url=https://archive.istoday/20120715050501/http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/chist.html \|date=July 15, 2012 }}", 2003: "X3J11 also introduced a host of smaller additions and adjustments, for example, the type qualifiers '''const''' and '''volatile''', and slightly different type promotion rules."</ref> A further qualifier, <code>noalias</code>, was suggested at the December 1987 meeting of the X3J11 committee, but was rejected; its goal was ultimately fulfilled by the <code>[[restrict]]</code> keyword in [[C99]]. Ritchie was not very supportive of these additions, arguing that they did not "carry their weight", but ultimately did not argue for their removal from the standard.<ref>"Let me begin by saying that I'm not convinced that even the pre-December qualifiers ('const' and 'volatile') carry their weight; I suspect that what they add to the cost of learning and using the language is not repaid in greater expressiveness. 'Volatile', in particular, is a frill for esoteric applications, and much better expressed by other means. Its chief virtue is that nearly everyone can forget about it. 'Const' is simultaneously more useful and more obtrusive; you can't avoid learning about it, because of its presence in the library interface. Nevertheless, I don't argue for the extirpation of qualifiers, if only because it is too late."</ref>

Const (computer programming): Difference between revisions