Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!portia!Jessica!duggie From: duggie@Jessica.stanford.edu (Doug Felt) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: CommToolbox & LSC Message-ID: <4522@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 15 Aug 89 17:27:40 GMT References: <10011@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> <2419@husc6.harvard.edu> <197@dbase.UUCP> Sender: USENET News SystemReply-To: duggie@Jessica.UUCP (Doug Felt) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 24 In article <197@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: [discussion of how to get around lack of 'const' and some other proposed ansi features deleted] >...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. > >/alastair/ I thought part of the purpose of const (and volatile) was to assist the compiler to make optimizations that would be difficult (or impossible) otherwise. Am I mistaken? Seems a lot of people want the hand-holding that protected memory would provide. Guess if anyone wants that kind of hand-holding, they'd better use a NeXT. :-) Doug Felt Courseware Authoring Tools Project duggie@jessica.stanford.edu