[saga-rg] Re: ISSUE 108

[Andre Merzky]

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 at ggf.org>
> From: John Shalf <jshalf at lbl.gov>
> Subject: Re: [saga-rg] Re: ISSUE 108
> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:11:24 -0700
> To: Andre Merzky <andre at 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 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
> >



-- 
"So much time, so little to do..."  -- Garfield