Is it better to remove "const" in front of "primitive" types used as function parameters in the header?

Question

In the code review process, one of my coworkers mentioned to me that "const"s in front of "primitive types" used as a function parameter in a header is meaningless, and he recommended to remove these "const"s. He suggested using "const" only in the source file in such cases. Primitive types mean types such as "int", "char", "float", etc.

The following is example.

example.h

int ProcessScore(const int score); 

example.cc

int ProcessScore(const int score) {   // Do some calculation using score   return some_value; } 

His suggestion is doing as follows:

example.h

int ProcessScore(int score);  // const is removed here. 

example.cc

int ProcessScore(const int score) {   // Do some calculation using score   return some_value; } 

But I'm somewhat confused. Usually, the user will look at only the header, so if there is inconsistency between the header and the source file, it might cause confusion.

Could anyone give some advice on this?

Answer 1

For all types (not just primitives), the top level const qualifiers in the function declaration are ignored. So the following four all declare the same function:

void foo(int const i, int const j); void foo(int i, int const j); void foo(int const i, int j); void foo(int i, int j); 

The const qualifier isn't ignored inside the function body, however. There it can have impact on const correctness. But that is an implementation detail of the function. So the general consensus is this:

1. Leave the const out of the declaration. It's just clutter, and doesn't affect how clients will call the function.

2. Leave the const in the definition if you wish for the compiler to catch any accidental modification of the parameter.