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 System 
Reply-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