🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Jul31.161942.1938@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> fsset@bach.UUCP (Scott E. Townsend) writes:
>In article <1913@ux.acs.umn.edu> hopper@ux.acs.umn.edu (Nils  McCarthy) writes:
>>In article <56163@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes:
>>>Proposed:
>>>
>>>That when a parameter [including the hidden "this" parameter] is declared 
>>>"const", or when the object referenced by a parameter is declared "const",
>>>than it is not legal to modify that which is declared "const" within the 
>>>function. This is to say, the trick of casting to a non-const does not 
>>>work on a parameter declared as "const."  Compilers can flag as an error 
>>>these situations.
>>>
              .
              .
              .
>>	In C, and C++ a cast is supposed to always work, no matter what
>>object you're casting. I think that it should be legal for compilers to
>
>I disagree with the statement "In C ... a cast is always supposed to work.."
>In fact, it does not always work, although you are always allowed to try
>without the compiler getting too upset.  For instance, casting a pointer

	Small terminology mistake. I meant that it was always supposed to
compile, NOT always supposed to work.

Sorry 'bout that,
UUCP: rutgers!umn-cs!ux.acs.umn.edu!hopper   (Eric Hopper)
     __                    /)                       /**********************/
    / ')                  //                         * I went insane to   *
   /  / ______  ____  o  //  __.  __  o ____. . _    * preserve my sanity *
  (__/ / / / <_/ / <_<__//__(_/|_/ (_<_(_) (_/_/_)_  * for later.         *
Internet:              />                            * -- Ford Prefect    *
hopper@ux.acs.umn.edu </  #include <disclaimer.h>   /**********************/