From -3401161619249956340 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,d40995f71ce940ac X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1990-08-02 09:41:29 PST Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: casting "const" to "non-const" Message-ID: <1990Aug2.164129.25231@zoo.toronto.edu> Date: 2 Aug 90 16:41:29 GMT References: <56159@microsoft.UUCP> <56163@microsoft.UUCP> <1913@ux.acs.umn.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 14 Posted: Thu Aug 2 17:41:29 1990 In article (Glenn Parker) writes: >Until recently (after C++ invented it), C did not have "const". Therein >lies some confusion. I submit that it is absurd to put const in the same >category with other type names. Const is not a typename, it is a storage >qualifier, like "auto" and "static"... The real, underlying problem here is precisely whether const *is* a storage qualifier or not, by intent. Unfortunately, const gets used for two very different purposes: "this is really, truly, a constant" and "I may be allowed to modify this but you aren't". It might have been better to use different words for these two uses. It's a bit late now. -- The 486 is to a modern CPU as a Jules | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Verne reprint is to a modern SF novel. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry