Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!darkstar!daniel@cis.ucsc.edu
From: daniel@cis.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: const reference
Keywords: Trying to pick a fight
Message-ID: <6285@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Date: 23 Aug 90 23:20:28 GMT
Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu
Reply-To: daniel@cis.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson)
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 12

Is there a concensus on what a const reference means?
A volatile ref. makes as much sense as a volatile pointer,
but a const reference seems redundant. Is their either
agreement or active debate on whether this should be allowed
or if it has non-null semantic content?

Daniel Edelson                       |  ``C++ is not too complex,
daniel@cis.ucsc.edu, or              |  job security is important.''
...!sun!practic!peren!daniel         |
Daniel Edelson                       |  ``C++ is not too complex,
daniel@cis.ucsc.edu, or              |  job security is important.''
..!sun!practic!peren!daniel         |