More requests for FreeBASIC

[stylin]

1. const variables and pointers (not just compile-time constants)

dim as integer i = 420
dim as const integer const_i = 69

dim as integer ptr pointer_to_i = @i
dim as integer const ptr const_pointer_to_i = @i

dim as const integer ptr pointer_to_const_i = @const_i
dim as const integer const ptr const_pointer_to_const_i = @const_i

2. alternate syntax for typedefs

type integer_type as integer
type as integer_type ptr pointer_to_integer_type

3. Incidently, what is this supposed to do (compiles and runs no problem)?

type foobar

type as integer

end type

[Anonymous]

Code:

Type foobar

type As Integer

End Type


Dim p As foobar

Dim As Integer Ptr y

y = cptr( Integer Ptr, @p )

y[0] = 38749


? p.type


Sleep

baad baad practice ;P

btw, post this on http://www.freebasic.net if you want more people (including the developers) to see it

[Jofers]

#1 makes no sense. If you have a runtime constant with a location in memory, that would make it a... variable?

#2 I can live with out, but it makes sense.

#3, keywords are allowed as type fields. myfoobar.type is an integer. Nifty, eh?

[stylin]

#1 makes no sense. If you have a runtime constant with a location in memory, that would make it a... variable?

Precisely - a variable that cannot be modified. What if you have a function parameter that you don't want to change? You can pass it by value, but then if the object is big, you'll have to deal with the expensive copying; that's one of the reasons why we pass by reference in the first place. The only option is to pass it as a const reference.

#3, keywords are allowed as type fields. myfoobar.type is an integer. Nifty, eh?

Ahh, I see. I won't comment on the consistency issue here (or lack thereof).

[Jofers]

Yes, but that's not possible. If something's in memory, it can be manipulated, and if it's a constant definition, it can't be in memory so you can't have a pointer to it.

[stylin]

Yes, but that's not possible. If something's in memory, it can be manipulated, and if it's a constant definition, it can't be in memory so you can't have a pointer to it.

Funny, I do it in C++ all the time ... :???:

I think you're confusing constant variable with a MACRO or #define. The two concepts simply aren't the same. Constant variables do indeed exist in memory, and can be addressed. Think of the word constant as a qualifier, not a type, and I think you'll start to get me.

[Plasma]

I think you're confusing BASIC with C++.

[Dr_Davenstein]

Man, personally, I'd much rather see operator overloading implemented than something like this. It looks to me like it would be alot of work... and very confusing on top of that.

[Jofers]

I'm not confused. In C++, a const is a define with type checking. However, if you create a const pointer, it allocates space and then just pretends it's special. But it's only compile-time pretending, there's no speed boost to it.

[marzecTM]

Yes, but that's not possible. If something's in memory, it can be manipulated, and if it's a constant definition, it can't be in memory so you can't have a pointer to it.

Funny, I do it in C++ all the time ... :???:

I think you're confusing constant variable with a MACRO or #define. The two concepts simply aren't the same. Constant variables do indeed exist in memory, and can be addressed. Think of the word constant as a qualifier, not a type, and I think you'll start to get me.

const references in c++ are a way to limit the usage of an object. all methods declared as const of a class can still be called from within a const reference context. those methods can change the the contents of an object...