🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NGO.91Feb19114034@tammy.harvard.edu> ngo@tammy.harvard.edu (Tom Ngo) writes:
+
+Background information to this posting was in a very recent summary.
+
...
+    ~volatile   Do allow optimization on this object [even if the
+                enclosing object is declared volatile].
+
+Joe Buck <jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu> was against ~volatile on the
+grounds that it would add virtually nothing to the language; it would
+"give a tiny bit of useful information to an optimizing compiler,
+[but] it would gain nothing in expressive capability."
+
+Joe Buck and Ron Guilmette <rfg@ncd.com> felt that symmetry and
+simplicity of implementation might be good reasons to permit a
+~volatile specifier.

One could argue that ~volatile has very little usefulness, however the
same could be said for `volatile' itself.  Does that mean that we should
get rid of `volatile'?  I think not.

Regarding the `symmetry' argument in favor of making ~const and ~volatile
into one unified proposal, it is my opinion that it would actually be
*easier* for implementors to implement both of them than it would be
for implementors to implement either one of them alone.  That's because
of the tight relationship between const and volatile (within a compiler).

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// New motto:  If it ain't broke, try using a bigger hammer.