4 ms·

I’m assuming the alternative would be to refer to an easy to deduct constant reference.

• klyrs 6y ago
  You might have replied before my edit, but one rarely "deduces" magic constants that result in good rngs, hashes, crypto, etc.
  • __s 6y ago
    Their point is you should have const int MAGIC_THING = 0xdeadbeef & then say MAGIC_THING throughout the code, rather than using 0xdeadbeef in all your expressions
    • klyrs 6y ago
      Sure. But OP said not to use numeric literals, which 0xdeadbeef certainly is.
      • wpietri 6y ago
        In case you somehow haven't figured it out by now, he meant in the body of one's code. He's fine with named constants. Protip: If a smart person says something that seems obviously dumb to you, it's worth trying to find an interpretation that isn't dumb. Doubly so when, as here, it's from a piece that others are clearly finding smart and useful.
  • monadic2 6y ago
    Ack, it autocorrected from “dedupe”. Also, you are referring to an orthogonal problem—you would presumably want to put magic constants into a static constant to reduce the chances of disagreement across references. Hell even if there’s a single usage I would expect magic constants to be clearly demarcated and documented. Edit: didn’t see sibling constant, didn’t mean to dupe the reply itself. This certainly refers to in-line use of numeric literals vs those used in constant definitions.