I think this question is addressed implicitly by the adherence to SIDL interface definitions. In SIDL, you define variables as "in", "out" or "in/out". A variable that is exclusively "in" is implicitly a const and can be trivially mapped as such in language that support const. So, we *do* specify const-ness -- we just use a language- independent way of expressing the function of the subroutine parameters. -john On Apr 27, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Andre Merzky wrote:
My opinion: we should define constness in the language bindings.
Reason: not all languages support const
Counter-argument: state constness of objects and parameters should not vary from one binding to the next. Well, that can also be solved by synchronizing the bindings in terms of constness.
Cheers, Andre.
Quoting [Andre Merzky] (Apr 20 2006):
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:55:33 +0200 From: Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> To: SAGA RG <saga-rg@ggf.org> Subject: ISSUE 108
108) explain why we don't specify constness. Or should we? - OPEN, URGENT
Obvious again. Opinions?
Cheers, Andre. -- "So much time, so little to do..." -- Garfield