Re: Named Constants vs. literals

Hi,

> We've all heard that you should use named constants in place of literals,
> but how far do you take this?

I only use named constants when it clarifies the code.  I realize that
this makes it a bit subjective. :)

In your example, having a named constant called STATUS really doesn't gain
you anything over the literal '*STATUS'.  Putting it in a named constant
in that case actually increases the work that the next programmer has to
do -- he has to search around to see what the constant contains.

Especially since the programmer won't know that it's a constant rather
than a variable -- and STATUS is a relatively common name for a variable.

On the other hand, x = open('/tmp/blah.txt': 74: 438) is not very
intutive.  In that case, the constants clarify things:

       x = open('/tmp/blah.txt': O_WRONLY+O_TRUNC+O_CREAT: M_RDWR);

Now, assuming that you're familiar with the parms of this API, you know
what the programmer intended...  write only, truncate, and create -- and
grant read/write permissions.

In our shop, anyway, it's not so much a "standard" as it is a "use your
own judgement, just do your best" type of thing.