From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:07:36 +0000
From: Theo Honohan <theoh@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Message-ID: <dir*8DiCo@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
References: <200009131811.TAA15840@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>, <019c01c01f08$eecbb1a0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr>
Subject: Re: [9fans] no const?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 080e1a8a-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

In article <019c01c01f08$eecbb1a0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr>,
Boyd Roberts <9fans@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
>From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <gwyn@arl.army.mil>
>> 
>> If the malloced pointer is stored in a properly declared variable,
>> then subsequent attempts to modify the pointed-to storage result
>> in a diagnostic.  Since the actual dynamic storage is not inherently
>> read-only, that is the best that one could hope for from the language.
>
>hope?  i don't see the point of adding a buncha extra code to the
>compiler in the 'hope' that things will be better.

You've got to be trolling, now.  By "the best (protection) that one
could hope for", DAG obviously means "the best (protection) that is
obtainable".