Re: mshtml: Remove const in front of REFIID as that is a macro that already starts with const.

[Andrew Talbot]

Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> Jacek,
>
> I'm not sure about this patch. gcc 3.1.1 produced a warning about a
> double const. The rules of what is const depending on where in the
> declaration it is placed are mind bongling (especially at 1am) and I
> don't know what the intention was here so please review.
>
> -static const REFIID tid_ids[] = {
> +static REFIID tid_ids[] = {
>      &IID_IHTMLWindow2
>  };

It would be easier if one were obliged to always put const (and volatile)
qualifiers to the right of what they qualify, then the whole declaration
would read from right to left. Thus, here,

char const * const *p;

p is a pointer to a constant pointer to a constant char. The
almost-universally adopted convention of putting the left-most qualifer on
the left of the type it qualifies, as in

const char *ch;

rather than the equivalent

char const *ch;

rather spoils this flow.

Here,

static const REFIID tid_ids[];

could be rewritten

static REFIID const tid_ids[];

And REFIID in a C setting is defined as:

const GUID * __MIDL_CONST (where __MIDL_CONST is "const", if rpcproxy.h
has not been included).

So, in case anyone is still awake and interested:

static const REFIID tid_ids[];

is equivalent to

static const GUID *const const tid_ids[]; (Note the erroneous double
const.)

or
    static GUID const *const const tid_ids[];

as I would prefer to put it. So, to conclude, you don't want the extra
const, and it may not have been the const you thought it was, either. :)

mshtml: Remove const in front of REFIID as that is a macro that already starts with const.

[Andrew Talbot]

Andrew Talbot wrote:
> So, in case anyone is still awake and interested:
> static const REFIID tid_ids[];
>
> is equivalent to
> static const GUID *const const tid_ids[]; (Note the erroneous double
>
> const.)
>
> or
>     static GUID const *const const tid_ids[];
>
> as I would prefer to put it. So, to conclude, you don't want the extra
> const, and it may not have been the const you thought it was, either. :)

Whoops! Hopefully, you had all fallen asleep before reading that bit, but
because we are talking about a #define, not a typedef, the declaration
would, in fact, be equivalent to:

static const const GUID *const tid_ids[];

(I checked it with gcc -E.) But it's still a const too far.