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