From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] no const?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:39:01 +0100
From: forsyth@vitanuova.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20000913143710.99FB9199E2@mail>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 06e6d05c-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

i suspect the answers are along the lines of disapproval sparked by:
	volatile: both too little and too much to be useful for the purpose for which it is touted
	const: confuses the C type system but does not seriously add clarity or protection
			(eg, char *strchr(const char *, int))
although the compilers now pay more attention, at least when type checking,
when const, volatile and register appear than that paper suggests.