Re: question about linker

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 28/11/2024 23:20, Keith Thompson wrote:

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 28/11/2024 22:38, Keith Thompson wrote:

>

    T x;           // defines a readonly variable (which probably needs
                   // initialising)
    T* y;          // defines a variable pointer
>
'const' is out of the picture.

You say T is an alias (what, a macro?) for 'const int', you show code
using T, and then you say "'const' is out of the picture".  If you
have a point, it escapes me.

>
Well, can you see 'const' in my example? You can't tell x is readonly
by only looking at this.

Yes, you said that T is an alias for 'const int'.  Not sure why you
wrote "alias".  Is it a macro, or a typedef, or something else?
I suggest that hiding "const" behind a macro or typedef is usually a
bad idea.  Why did you do it here?  Is your example based on real
code, or did you contrive it to be as confusing as possible?

>
It's to illustrate that the constness of a variable may depend on
something which is remote from its declaration.
>
Which is unlike how it usually works elsewhere.
>
(And if it matters, the alias used a typedef.)
>
For extra confusion, consider this version:
>
  T x, *y;
>
The storage for x is read-only; for y it isn't. Or is it the other way
around?

Yes, deliberately confusing code is confusing.  Yes, different languages
are different.  Any problems with your code snippets can be solved by
writing them more straightforwardly.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */