• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jdehaan

Method returning a constant

5 posts in this topic

Hey guys!

I'm fairly new to C++, but when ever I see something I'm unsure about I always try to figure out what's happening. I've seen this a couple of times, but never used it.

[source lang="cpp"]type Foo() const
{
return stuff;
}[/source]

Why is it that the returned value should be a constant? Why wouldn't it be a constant already since in theory you shouldn't be able to alter it?

I feel kind of silly asking this since I am not that new to programming and I feel like this is something I should know, so go easy on me!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jebbles' timestamp='1347858205' post='4980782']
Why is it that the returned value should be a constant?
[/quote]
Declaring a method as const means, that this method is not able to modify the object itself. You can see it as 'read-only' declaration. When you got a const object
const MyClass myObject =...
, this object is more or less read-only. You can only call consts methods, which [i]guarantees [/i]that this object will not be modified.

Though there're always ways to cheat...
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I think of methods is the following: A method is a function that takes an implicit first argument --called `this'-- which is a pointer to the instance on which it is called. Well, plus some syntactic sugar.

A const method is one in which the `this' pointer is const. That's really all there is to it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jebbles' timestamp='1347858205' post='4980782']
I've seen this a couple of times, but never used it.
[/quote]
You should be, when it is appropriate.
The above answer explains what it is but further research can be done by searching for “const correctness”.
In the game companies in which I have worked, it was never required, but it was required at Morgan Stanley and NTT DoCoMo.
In fact it is so important to Morgan Stanley that it is in their interview, and if you don’t give the correct answers, you won’t get the job.
It is just good practice.



[quote name='Jebbles' timestamp='1347858205' post='4980782']
[source lang="cpp"]type Foo() const
{
return stuff;
}[/source]

Why is it that the returned value should be a constant? Why wouldn't it be a constant already since in theory you shouldn't be able to alter it?
[/quote]
Your example shows passing a return by value, and making that const is indeed silly.
It is more common when you pass things by reference or by pointer, because the caller could then use those to modify the source object, which is what const is designed to prevent.
If you are returning a reference or a pointer, get into the habit of thinking about whether it should be const or not.


L. Spiro Edited by L. Spiro
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[code]
const type Foo(){
return stuff;
}[/code]
Is VERY different than
[code]
type Foo() const{
return stuff;
}[/code]
It sounds like you expect the behaviour of the former (that is, to return a "const type"), but what you are seeing means, as was pointed out, "this" is const. It is most useful in cases such as comparitive operator functions (<, ==, >, ect), as it allows you to compare const data types with the assurance that the comparison operators cannot change the values owned by "this" as some dangerous comparison functions might.

For instance, say you're using 2D floating point vectors and you make a Vec2f class. You might have two const Vec2f foo and bar that you need to compare. If you want to perform a foo==bar, the class method Vec2f::operator==(const Vec2f& other){} must also be const (that is, it must read Vec2f::operator==(const Vec2f& other) [b]const[/b]{} ) otherwise foo==bar will not compile. The compiler will complain that allowing foo==bar when operator== is not const discards the const attribute of foo. Edited by Zouflain
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]
It is most useful in cases such as comparitive operator functions (<, ==, >, ect), as it allows you to compare const data types with the assurance that the comparison operators cannot change the values owned by "this" as some dangerous comparison functions might.
[/quote]
I don't see why it is more useful in comparison functions than any other function. In general, unless a member function logically needs to modify state it should be marked const so it can be used with values and references/pointers that are declared const.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0