Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!dog.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck From: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Pre-proposal: ~const [Rev 1.6] Message-ID: <9799@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 15 Dec 90 20:56:28 GMT References: Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) Distribution: comp Lines: 22 ngo@tammy.harvard.edu (Tom Ngo) writes: > If this usage of ~const were to be adopted, we would be obligated > to consider a similar type-specifier, ~volatile, .... No, we wouldn't. ~volatile wouldn't buy you anything. It would presumably be used to specify that a specific member in a volatile object is not volatile. While that would give a tiny bit of useful information to an optimizing compiler, it would gain nothing in expressive capability. I'm not sure I'm for the ~const feature, but the proposer does have an argument. I don't see the corresponding argument existing for ~volatile. You might want to include it anyway for consistency in the grammar. schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes: > And maybe even ~alias, too. :-) Cute. (For those that don't get the joke, this refers to the "noalias" keyword that was almost added by the ANSI C committee. -- Joe Buck jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck