Re: [9fans] no const?

["Boyd Roberts" <boyd@planete.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
 
> Since "const" doesn't mean "constant", again it's evident that
> you're criticizing something that you do not understand.

i know what i means; this value/object cannot be modified.
you could use it with the arg to strlen; a pointer to const char.
if you really wanna smash memory 'const' will not save you;
say you malloc the arg to strlen.  later on (not in strlen) you could
smash it.  const overly complicates the language and adds little value.

> > volatile?  yeah, i remember times when i coulda used it.  like in
> > the 8th ed tu-16 tape driver that john mackin and i fixed.
> > volatile would been nice, but we fixed it with a macro (no assembler).
> 
> I don't know the specific problem you encountered, but the PDP-11
> PCC had a specific hack to disable optimization for certain kinds
> of access that could be identified as potentially within the I/O
> page.  I don't recall whether Ritchie's compiler performed the
> optimization in the first place.

hmm, 8th ed ran on VAXen, not 11's; only about 10 licences
were granted.  but, it was some 16 bit reference in the interrupt routine.
8th ed was based on 4.1BSD and so i don't rightly recall what compiler
it was running.  ken should know.

> It's easy to complain about what others do, but also pointless.

really?   criticism serves no purpose?  nonsense.