Oh! I forgot to insist on the fact that I'm not against an _optional_ const
attribute, but with different semantics than the current const keyword.
--
Sylvain
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 07:57:16PM -0400, Alex Pilon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:29:41AM +, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I would go #define and not direct "static const".
> >
> > Because I think "const" is part of the excess syntax of C and should be
> > optional (and treated a
Hi Matthew,
On 12 October 2017 at 16:21, Matthew Parnell wrote:
> I'm writing a header file that will contain constants required.
> Should I use:
>
> #define FOO 123.456
Depends on the kind of header file you are talking about. A CPP define
can be the right thing, if this header file is part
