I would pose that question to the SIDL/Babel developers at LLNL, but I think it may be an oversight in their document. There should be some convention for handling the class methods more rigorously. -john On Apr 27, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Andre Merzky wrote:
Ah, I was not aware of that point in SIDL - that makes sense.
That leaves out constness for class methods, as in:
string get_attribute (string key) const; // is const string set_attribute (string key, string val); // is not const
Is there some SIDL convention for these as well? I'm afraid I parsed through the SIDL doc a couple of times, but it still leaves me puzzled more often than not :-(
Thanks, Andre.
Quoting [John Shalf] (Apr 27 2006):
Cc: SAGA RG <saga-rg@ggf.org> From: John Shalf <jshalf@lbl.gov> Subject: Re: [saga-rg] Re: ISSUE 108 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:11:24 -0700 To: Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net>
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
-- "So much time, so little to do..." -- Garfield