Subj : Re: Win98 error
To   : borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp
From : maeder@glue.ch (Thomas Maeder [TeamB])
Date : Fri Mar 12 2004 10:33 pm

Bob Gonder <notbg@notmindspring.invalid> writes:

>>> #define	nmax	100
>>
>>Why would one even consider doing this?
>
> Probably because of my ASM background, I don't like creating variables
> that should be "immediate" values.

But this

const int nmax=100;

is not a variable. It's a const. If used like a macro can be used, it has an
"immediate" value, like a macro. Additionally, it's address can be taken. And
it can belong in a namespace, avoiding to contribute to global namespace
"pollution".

Short, it has *all* the uses the macro version has; then, it has more uses;
but it hasn't any of the problems macros have. I'd consider defining nmax
as a macro a bug.


> And,I usually have sizes global (or at least modular) in scope.
> And, it just looks too much like BASIC, initializing array sizes by
> the contents of a variable.

It's *not* a variable. It's a const.


> I suppose the "const" in front of it makes it all right, but it gives me
> the willies.

I can't challenge that, of course :-)

.