[saga-rg] Re: ISSUE 108

[John Shalf]

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 at merzky.net>
>> To: SAGA RG <saga-rg at 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
>