Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wateng.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!wateng!padpowell
From: padpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: read-only strings? and also VOLATILE
Message-ID: <1567@wateng.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Oct-84 11:17:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: wateng.1567
Posted: Sat Oct 20 11:17:50 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Oct-84 14:40:15 EDT
References: <4488@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 18

I like the VOLATILE concept, coupled with the following caveats:
1.  No access optimizations must be done for objects fetched/stored
	using a volitile object.
2.  Note that the above will "break" bit fields (Hurrah!) but allow
	us poor hardware types some idea of how to write code.
	I might add that newer interfaces do not suffer from the
	"byte/word" access problems, as us designers have learned
	(Well, some of us, anyways) about this problem.

Read only strings?  Sounds like a GOOD idea. In rebuttal to some people
with "writable strings passed to routines", I suggest the following

	char *temp[] = "temp_fileXXXXXX";
	...
	if( mktemp(temp) < 0 ) FATALMSG( "your string was too short" );

Patrick ("snprintf?  sprintf with bounds checking?  PLLEEEASE??")
	Powell