paul@UUNET.UU.NET (Paul Hudson) (02/13/89)
While I think the addition of a method of telling the compiler that a function does not return is a step forward, the syntax chosen for it is bad. "Const" functions are OK - there's an obvious way in which a function which returns the same results each time it is called with the same arguments is constant. But there isn't an intuitive way that a function that does not return is "volatile". I get the impression this was chosen because it's a qualifier to types so slotted in without too many changes, and it didn't mean a new keyword, but this really isn't enough. The (English) connotations of the word should have some connection with it's semantics, and currently this isn't so. Please consider changing it, even at the cost of a new keyword. (Two remarks on const functions: are the restrictions on arguments enforced? Surely a const pointer to const data is an acceptable arg to a const function. If this isn't allowed, one can't for instance write a binary-table lookup function as a const function, if the table is to be an arg). Paul Hudson Snail mail: Monotype ADG Email: ...!ukc!acorn!moncam!paul Science Park, paul@moncam.co.uk Milton Road, "Sun Microsysytems: Cambridge, The Company is Arrogant (TM)" CB4 4FQ