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'Leary 
Organization: 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.