Re: [9fans] no const?

[Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>]

> > Sigh, no. You can't prove it works. You can only prove it hasn't
> > broken so far.
> 
> yes, i do know that one.

that's all right, then. we'll ignore the "proof" thing, then. :-)

> but, i does work without them  there is
> a subtle difference.  ie. they were unnecessay,

Again, no. *you* might not need them. Plus, of course, there's the
distinction between Plan 9 the operating system, and Plan 9 as an
environment. Application programmers are traditionally less sophistocated
than kernel developments, and the ratio of support tools varies accordingly.

> whereas 'if' is
> indispensable.

Uh-uh. 'if' in C is a lot easier than coding in assembler with branches,
but indispensible? The trade-off is just more noticable to you. There's
an IOCCC entry, IIRC, that avoids 'if' completely.

In other words, it's a subjective thing.

> > 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' :-).

Well, I can't argue beyond this point: I know that 'const' in ANSI C
doesn't mean quite what it should, and avoid using it for that reason
(I particularly dislike not being able to remember whereabouts in the
decl the damn thing should appear).

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

I can argue with this one, too... :-)

steve