Re: [9fans] const

[Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>]

ken had total disregard for const and that is good enough for me.

i rememeber :rofix and other such hacks, but that was when memory
was an issue.

brucee

On 12/8/05, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> it's not so much type decorations, as those that are not terribly useful or to some extent misleading.
> (mind you, java programs look like christmas trees--holiday trees to those of you in the US--
> with all their type and status decorations.)
>
> if you followed the earlier links you'll see one of the classic examples
> of it being fairly odd as an interface constraint:
>
>        char* strchr(const char* x, int y)
>
> but the resulting pointer points into the const string and ok, it doesn't write to it itself, but it
> hands you back a pointer into the same string so you can do it yourself!
> that's wierd, especially since it must effectively have cast x to plain char* internally
> so it's not much of a constraint either way.
>
> i find it's really a device for forcing the adding and removing of const
> until a compiler shuts up.   this is unusual, because most type clash diagnostics do mean something;
> perhaps not all that much, but something.   perhaps i'm lucky, but i have found bugs through
> type clashes (often when checking extern linkages) but i can't remember a single thing detected by const.
> it's one of those things where ``now it's there we might as well try to use it'' but i'm afraid i'm unconvinced.
>
>