Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary

On 13.10.2024 15:14, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 13.10.2024 um 15:09 schrieb Thiago Adams:

Em 10/13/2024 9:58 AM, Bonita Montero escreveu:

Am 13.10.2024 um 14:38 schrieb Thiago Adams:

Em 10/13/2024 8:49 AM, Bonita Montero escreveu:

>
constexpr doesn't hurt.

>
It spreads confusion, ...

 
It can be understood in 10s.

I doubt that. - If you need a technical term for some "internal"
requirement you typically need a lot of background information
that (usually?) is pointless to a programmer.

What do I (in my role as a solution programmer) gain from it?

In that role specifically, but also generally, I think that
everything that a programming language can do under the hood
should not be a (concept-)burden to the programmer.

(Note that I'm not arguing against it.)

... and makes code incompatible with previous versions  of C "for free".

 
New improvements are always incompatible and there are mature C23
compilers.

What do I (in my role as a solution programmer) gain from it?
Is it "necessary" (as the topic formulates it)?

Is it reasonable to subsume it with the "const" keyword, as the
OP suggests. - I am honestly asking, and interested in whether
that makes sense or not. (Yet I haven't seen a clear answer, or
maybe I have missed it.)

Janis