From -7471232601340298104 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,d40995f71ce940ac X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1990-07-30 19:48:36 PST Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!cs.umn.edu!ux.acs!hopper From: hopper@ux.acs.umn.edu (hopper) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: casting "const" to "non-const" Message-ID: <1913@ux.acs.umn.edu> Date: 31 Jul 90 02:48:36 GMT References: <56159@microsoft.UUCP> <56163@microsoft.UUCP> Reply-To: hopper@ux.acs.umn.edu (Nils McCarthy) Organization: Omnifarious Software Lines: 28 Posted: Tue Jul 31 03:48:36 1990 In article <56163@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes: >Proposed: > >That when a parameter [including the hidden "this" parameter] is declared >"const", or when the object referenced by a parameter is declared "const", >than it is not legal to modify that which is declared "const" within the >function. This is to say, the trick of casting to a non-const does not >work on a parameter declared as "const." Compilers can flag as an error >these situations. > I don't agree with the illegalization of this construct. I think it is against the spirit of the language to illegalize a cast. In C, and C++ a cast is supposed to always work, no matter what object you're casting. I think that it should be legal for compilers to preform optimizations based on the information given by declaring a const parameter, but programmers should be allowed to cast if they feel it neccesary. Have fun, UUCP: rutgers!umn-cs!ux.acs.umn.edu!hopper (Eric Hopper) __ /) /**********************/ / ') // * I went insane to * / / ______ ____ o // __. __ o ____. . _ * preserve my sanity * (__/ / / / <_/ / <_<__//__(_/|_/ (_<_(_) (_/_/_)_ * for later. * Internet: /> * -- Ford Prefect * hopper@ux.acs.umn.edu /**********************/