🚀 go-pugleaf

On 15 Aug 90 21:28:31 GMT, DEREK@AppleLink.apple.com (Derek White) said:

DEREK> In fact, the recent examples that have shown a need for
DEREK> "partially const" objects have fallen in the same catagory: I
DEREK> think they can be solved by seperating the constant and variable
DEREK> portions of an object into constant and varying fields or
DEREK> classes.

Excellent point. Moreover 'const' in C++ already has the right
definition; thank Stroustrup for not having botched it like in Ansi C. i
would hate that any debate on 'const' opened the way for the usual call
to greater Ansi C conformity. Fortunately C++ is quite a different
language.

DEREK> Although it may be expedient to make a statement that an object
DEREK> is const when it really isn't, I think in the long run honesty is
DEREK> the best policy.  I suggest a hard line approach: const is
DEREK> constant.

Again, we go back to my usual and tired observation; what we wnat to
achieve is reuse of interface, proof and implementation, and overloading
keywords can only go so far to this end (see how strained is the syntax
for the = 0 virtual function case). C++ should provide mechanisms
towards this, and mostly implementation oriented. 'const' as such is a
statement on the implementation of an object, not on its interface or
semantics.

--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk