From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <02c301c01db9$8141c3e0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr>
From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@planete.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <200009131811.TAA15840@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [9fans] no const? 
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:33:33 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 07218bac-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

From: "Steve Kilbane" mailto:steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk
> Classic Boyd:
> > it's a self evident proof that plan 9 works without them.
>
> Sigh, no. You can't prove it works. You can only prove it hasn't
> broken so far.

yes, i do know that one.  but, i does work without them  there is
a subtle difference.  ie. they were unnecessay, whereas 'if' is
indispensable.

> Question: are you arguing against the concepts of volatile and const,
> or against their meanings in ANSI C?

the real problem is how it was done in ANSI C.  i've got nothing against
constants.  i've even been known to use the odd constant, but never
a 'const' :-).

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 see that polluting the language in such a deplorable way is valid.

well it wouldn't be me if it wasn't 'Classic Boyd'...