Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

const / constexpr review #351

Open
tap opened this issue Mar 6, 2015 · 0 comments
Open

const / constexpr review #351

tap opened this issue Mar 6, 2015 · 0 comments

Comments

@tap
Copy link
Member

tap commented Mar 6, 2015

At least in the parts of the code where I've been involved, I think we have done a fair job of using const consistently and intentionally for methods and the like. Maybe less so for variables. We should do a sweep across the code base and make sure we're sane everywhere on this as it's only really effective if we are consistent and not casting it away.

Also for constants we have a mix of macros and consts, many of which could be replaced with constexpr. It's unclear to me just how marginal the Microsoft compiler is about constexpr so that needs to factor into any changes in this department.

@tap tap added this to the Foundation Code Review milestone Mar 6, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant