Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!pete From: pete@ics.uci.edu (Peter Miguel Oleary) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: CommToolbox & LSC Message-ID: <21002@paris.ics.uci.edu> Date: 15 Aug 89 11:18:07 GMT References: <10011@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> <2419@husc6.harvard.edu> <197@dbase.UUCP> Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu Reply-To: Pete O'LearyOrganization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS Lines: 11 In article <197@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: >and this way pretty much get around any slight incompatibilities. In case >you're not aware, 'const' brings very little to party. The compiler is >supposed to check to make sure you do what you said you'd do and not let >you write to a const object. (C Chauvinist Pig voice:) If you want that >kind of hand-holding, boy, better code in Pascal. 'const' is also supposed to tell an intelligent compiler that the constant is eligible for certain optimizations, such as inline substitution. Pete O'Leary.