ngo@tammy.harvard.edu (Tom Ngo) (02/20/91)
Background information to this posting was in a very recent summary.
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.atc.olivetti.com> suggested that
!const might be more natural than ~const. Here are two reasons I
originally chose "~const" instead of "!const":
1. !const seems to connote that the specified member is merely "not
const". The semantics of my proposal call for a more active
*overriding* of constness that would otherwise be taken on by
virtue of membership in an enclosing structure. I feel that this
meaning is more closely suggested by ~const ("destroy
constness"?).
2. People are used to seeing ~ in declarations (as in destructors),
whereas the idea of seeing ! is more foreign.
This is one of those important but difficult-to-debate aesthetic
issues. !const does seem like a good alternative. I could go either
way, but I lean toward ~const.
Comments?
--
Tom Ngo
ngo@harvard.harvard.edu
617/495-1768 lab number, leave message