C++ – Const correctness for value parameters

cconst-correctnesspass-by-value

I know there are few question about const correctness where it is stated that the declaration of a function and its definition do not need to agree for value parameters. This is because the constness of a value parameter only matters inside the function. This is fine:

// header
int func(int i);

// cpp
int func(const int i) {
    return i;
}

Is doing this really a best practice? Because I've never seen anyone do it. I've seen this quotation (not sure of the source) in other places this has been discussed:

"In fact, to the compiler, the function signature is the same whether you include this const in front of a value parameter or not."

"Avoid const pass-by-value parameters in function declarations. Still make the parameter const in the same function's definition if it won't be modified."

The second paragraph says to not put the const in the declaration. I assume this is because the constness of a value parameter is meaningless as part of a interface definition. It is an implementation detail.

Based on this recommendation, is it also recommended for the pointer values of pointer parameters? (It is meaningless on a reference parameter since you can't reassign a reference.)

// header
int func1(int* i);
int func2(int* i);

// cpp
int func1(int* i) {
    int x = 0;

    *i = 3; // compiles without error
    i = &x; // compiles without error

    return *i;
}
int func2(int* const i) {
    int x = 0;

    *i = 3; // compiles without error
    i = &x; // compile error

    return *i;
}

Summary: Making value parameters is useful to catch some logic errors. Is it a best practice? Do you go to the extreme of leaving the const out of the header file? Is it just as useful to const pointer values? Why or why not?

Some references:

C++ const keyword – use liberally?
Use of 'const' for function parameters

An example of when const value parameters are useful:

bool are_ints_equal(const int i, const int j) {
    if (i = j) { // without the consts this would compile without error
        return true;
    } else {
        return false;
    }
    // return i = j; // I know it can be shortened
}

Best Answer

My take on it:

It's not a bad idea, but the issue is minor and your energy might be better spent on other things.

In your question you provided a good example of when it might catch an error, but occasionally you also end up doing something like this:

void foo(const int count /* … */)
{
   int temp = count;  // can't modify count, so we need a copy of it
   ++temp;

   /* … */
}

The pros and cons are minor either way.

Related Solutions

Java – Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”

Java is always pass-by-value. Unfortunately, when we deal with objects we are really dealing with object-handles called references which are passed-by-value as well. This terminology and semantics easily confuse many beginners.

It goes like this:

public static void main(String[] args) {
    Dog aDog = new Dog("Max");
    Dog oldDog = aDog;

    // we pass the object to foo
    foo(aDog);
    // aDog variable is still pointing to the "Max" dog when foo(...) returns
    aDog.getName().equals("Max"); // true
    aDog.getName().equals("Fifi"); // false
    aDog == oldDog; // true
}

public static void foo(Dog d) {
    d.getName().equals("Max"); // true
    // change d inside of foo() to point to a new Dog instance "Fifi"
    d = new Dog("Fifi");
    d.getName().equals("Fifi"); // true
}

In the example above aDog.getName() will still return "Max". The value aDog within main is not changed in the function foo with the Dog "Fifi" as the object reference is passed by value. If it were passed by reference, then the aDog.getName() in main would return "Fifi" after the call to foo.

Likewise:

public static void main(String[] args) {
    Dog aDog = new Dog("Max");
    Dog oldDog = aDog;

    foo(aDog);
    // when foo(...) returns, the name of the dog has been changed to "Fifi"
    aDog.getName().equals("Fifi"); // true
    // but it is still the same dog:
    aDog == oldDog; // true
}

public static void foo(Dog d) {
    d.getName().equals("Max"); // true
    // this changes the name of d to be "Fifi"
    d.setName("Fifi");
}

In the above example, Fifi is the dog's name after call to foo(aDog) because the object's name was set inside of foo(...). Any operations that foo performs on d are such that, for all practical purposes, they are performed on aDog, but it is not possible to change the value of the variable aDog itself.

For more information on pass by reference and pass by value, consult the following SO answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/430958/6005228. This explains more thoroughly the semantics and history behind the two and also explains why Java and many other modern languages appear to do both in certain cases.

C++ – Use of ‘const’ for function parameters

const is pointless when the argument is passed by value since you will not be modifying the caller's object.

Wrong.

It's about self-documenting your code and your assumptions.

If your code has many people working on it and your functions are non-trivial then you should mark const any and everything that you can. When writing industrial-strength code, you should always assume that your coworkers are psychopaths trying to get you any way they can (especially since it's often yourself in the future).

Besides, as somebody mentioned earlier, it might help the compiler optimize things a bit (though it's a long shot).

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Java – Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”

C++ – Use of ‘const’ for function parameters

Related Topic