🚀 go-pugleaf

< From: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel)

< Background: For certain reasons I'm trying to write programs in a way so
< that they can be compiled with either an ANSI-C- or a C++-compiler.

< Problem:  The following is the narrowed down failing case where my
< C++-compiler (Comeau 3.0 on ISC UNIX) rejected some piece of code that is
< valid ANSI-C (according to my SysV.R4 compiler and to Jutta Degener who
< pointed out in private mail that the `const'-ness of a function's argument
< is not part of the function's type in ANSI-C).

<	void foo(const int i) { /* i not modified here */ }
<	...
<	void (*bar)(int) = foo;

< Question 1:  Has the C++ standardization already an opinion on this, i.e.
< is this is an *intentional* deviation from ANSI-C?

No and no. This is a topic under active discussion at this time by the
standards committee.

< Question 2: Has the C++ standardization an opinion on function pointer
< casts which differ from the function's declaration only in the type
< qualifiers of one or more arguments?

As I understnad it, the signatures must match. Whether the const is part of
the signature is what is currently under debate.

					Tony Hansen
			    hansen@pegasus.att.com, tony@attmail.com
				att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony