ngo@tammy.harvard.edu (Tom Ngo) (02/20/91)
Background information to this posting was in a very recent summary.
Tony Hansen <hansen@pegasus.att.comm>
[In response to a very early version, long before I posted] "Yes,
the idea has been bantied around somewhat and there does seem to
be a need for something like what you propose. I think it is
definitely worth posting for further discussion...."
Dag Bruck <dag@control.lth.se>
"I think your proposal is interesting, but I suggest you extend it
with a discussion of ~const member functions." Done. Dag, thanks
again for your time in looking at this proposal several times
before I posted it.
Ron Guilmette <rfg@ncd.com>
"I very much liked your ~const proposal. The only thing that I
would suggest is that you make it (symmetrically) apply to both
const and to volatile." Currently, ~volatile and similar
constructs are mentioned but not discussed in my proposal. See
another message in this clump with a header containing "Possible
generalizations"...
Jim Adcock <jimad@microsoft.UUCP>
"I support this ~const idea. I think it helps resolve a lot of
the 'does const mean const?' debates." "...iff we use this
opportunity to [deprecate cast-from-const]." Agreed. For
details, <see the message whose header contains "Fate of
cast-from-const."
--
Tom Ngo
ngo@harvard.harvard.edu
617/495-1768 lab number, leave message