🚀 go-pugleaf

On 08 Apr 1996 10:15:24 PDT, johnw@jove.acs.unt.edu (John R. Williams)
wrote:

>David Byrden (Goyra@iol.ie) wrote:
>>      The draft standard uses 'constness' several times. There is already a 
>> perfectly suitable English word, 'constancy', which removes the need for 
>> this recently invented, rather crude word. Why give it the stamp of 
>> approval?
>
>Constness and constancy are not the same. Specifically, constness is a 
>means of enforcing constancy. Besides, forming new words like this is a 
>time-honored tradition (as much as anything in the programming community 
>can be considered 'time-honored', I suppose).
>

I thought that I could stay out of this discussion, but ....

I must agree, but it goes beyond programming languages.
The English language (with which C++ intersects) is indeed a language
of borrowed, mangled, massaged, and glued together bits.  This is both
a strength and a weakness.  I am, however, personally glad of this
feature because I shudder at the thought of saying "tree, tree, tree"
instead of "forest" like another language that I know.

So, in homage to the word "ain't" and some dastardly cases of exact
synonyms I welcome "constness".  (As though the world would stop
turning based on my opinion.)


John Olson
jwo@netcom.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your 
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu 
]