🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <smeyersDMBEsy.5M8@netcom.com> smeyers@netcom.com (Scott
Meyers) writes:

> A few months ago there was a discussion of whether the language should be
> extended so that const and non-const objects would have different
> constructors, the idea being that initialization for a const object might
> be different from initialization for a non-const object.  My understanding
> is the committee has rejected that idea.  Could someone please post a
> summary of the problems with the idea or point me to a place where I can
> find them?

It is too late in the standards process for any significant changes.
The extensions working group was disbanded several meetings ago
and the committee no longer has any mechanism for considering extensions.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  Moderation policy:
  http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html. ]