From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <15aab52846343ea87fd2f694624eaa80@vitanuova.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] const
Date: Wed,  7 Dec 2005 19:51:31 +0000
From: rog@vitanuova.com
In-Reply-To: <7871fcf50512071130m475c7240i3c65da1b4c900c15@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: bdcbdba8-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> So it does the optimization possible with const.  Not the "interface"
> part, though.  If you don't like type decorations, I guess this way's
> better.

from my point of view, const pretends to be something it isn't.
it does not guarantee you anything at all (it is routinely necessary
to cast from const to non-const), and most ironically of all,
in the only place where const would actually mean something,
literal strings, which are often held in read-only memory,
the type is not const qualified.