Home/ Questions/Q 501281
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-13T06:10:25+00:00

I was wondering whether others find it redundant to do something like this… const

  • 0

I was wondering whether others find it redundant to do something like this…

const double RESET_TIME = 0.0;
timeSinceWhatever = RESET_TIME;

rather than just doing

timeSinceWhatever = 0.0;

Do you find the first example to aid in readability? The argument comes down to using magic numbers, and while 0 and 1 are considered “exceptions” to the rule, I’ve always kind of thought that these exceptions only apply to initializing variables, or index accessing. When the number is meaningful, it should have a variable attached to its meaning.

I’m wondering whether this assumption is valid, or if it’s just redundant to give 0 a named constant.

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    Typically, one benefit of defining a constant rather than just using a literal is if the value ever needs to change in several places at once.

    From your own example, what if REST_TIME needed to be -1.5 due to some obscure new business rule? You could change it one place, the definition of the constant, or you could change it everywhere you had last used 0.0 as a float literal.

    In short, defining constants, in general, aids primarily in maintainability.

    • 0