From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200009131811.TAA15840@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] no const? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:03:00 +0200."
             <029101c01da4$7923b840$89c584c3@cybercable.fr> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:11:28 +0200
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0718f55a-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

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.

As for unnecessary, this is also true of most things in the language.
Indeed, it's true of the language itself, but that's taking things to
ridiculous levels. The question is, are they worthwhile? I.e., does the
effort of putting them into the compiler pay off in bug avoidance?

> the mess you can make with those 'storage classes' is not understandable.

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

steve