🚀 go-pugleaf

OK, my example of before, I found out why it was dumping core.

When you define:

char *x = "abcde" ;

is x an implied const? If it is, gcc is not reporting an error it should
be (I think).

If I declare a function like this,

void y(char &x) ;

it's saying I want to modify the value of x within the function. I quote from
Stroustrup, section 4.6.3, "Argument Passing", page 125:

  The absence of 'const' in the declaration of a reference argument is taken
  as a statement of intent to modify the variable:

      void g(large& arg);  // assumes that g() modifies arg

Given this, any const object passed to such a formal parameter should be
flagged as a compiler error.

I would personally have appreciated gcc 2.3.2 (sparc.sun.sunos4.1.3) if it
would have done so.