remove top-level const's from declarations

remove top-level const's from declarations

[benko.pal, 2012-09-06 19:20:57]

following up
http://codereview.appspot.com/6477062/#msg5

[benko.pal, 2012-09-06 19:24:00]

results of the following searches were checked manually:
grep -rE -e 'const( +[a-zA-Z0-9_]*)? *, *$' .
grep -rE -e 'const( +[a-zA-Z0-9_]*)?( *,[^;]+)?\) *(const|= *0)? *;' .

[Graham Percival, 2012-09-06 22:11:05]

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 07:20:57PM +0000, benko.pal@gmail.com wrote:
> Description:
> remove top-level const's from declarations

Could you elaborate on why we want this?  Do the consts fail to
compile with some compiler, or are they only supposed to be
included in the C++ files, or...?

- Graham

[benko.pal, 2012-09-07 07:40:33]

> Could you elaborate on why we want this?

I seem to have misunderstood your qouted comment
http://codereview.appspot.com/6477062/#msg5

> Do the consts fail to
> compile with some compiler, or are they only supposed to be
> included in the C++ files, or...?

I faintly remember a version of MSVC++ mishandling these, i.e.
handling foo (int) and foo (int const) as different signatures,
which was particularly annoying with virtual members.
I fear these const's can mislead developers not absolutely
up-to-date with all the exact details of the c++ standards.

p

[Graham Percival, 2012-09-07 12:20:33]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 09:40:32AM +0200, Benkő Pál wrote:
> > Could you elaborate on why we want this?
> 
> I seem to have misunderstood your qouted comment
> http://codereview.appspot.com/6477062/#msg5

ah, I'd forgotten that.

> I fear these const's can mislead developers not absolutely
> up-to-date with all the exact details of the c++ standards.

Ok.  I absolutely do not know the C++ standards.  :)
The patch LGTM now.

- Graham