Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:5055 comp.std.c:1830
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.oz.au!ok
From: ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Volatile declaration in C++
Summary: that was "noalias"
Message-ID: <2441@munnari.oz.au>
Date: 16 Oct 89 08:45:30 GMT
References: <42718@sgi.sgi.com> <4176@pegasus.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au
Lines: 25

In article <4176@pegasus.ATT.COM>, psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:
> In article <42718@sgi.sgi.com>, karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:
> > Has anyone figured out how to make volatile work in cfront?  Are there any
> > plans to make volatile an official part of the language?

> It's dead, Jim.  (Gee, that'd be sort of confusing; can we just call
> you Bruce?-)  It's like this:

What Dennis Ritchie declared "non-negotiable" was not 'volatile'
but 'noalias'.  He wasn't opposed to the basic idea as such, but
to kludging in an untried hack at the last possible minute.  Volatile
*IS* in the draft ANSI standard for C.

> And lo, the multitudes said, "Verily, it art good; but couldja add

I do hope they spoke better English than that.  "art" is second-person
singular present indicative.

> And the multitudes ... did sayest, "Huh?"

English again:  "sayest" is second-person singular present indicative.

> themselves, "Hey, this Barn fellow has some really hot stuff."  And so

I thought it was "Bjarne".