Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!husc6!ngo From: ngo@tammy.harvard.edu (Tom Ngo) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Responses to ~const 1.6: General reactions Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 91 16:28:25 GMT Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Distribution: comp Organization: Harvard Chemistry Department Lines: 33 Background information to this posting was in a very recent summary. Tony Hansen [In response to a very early version, long before I posted] "Yes, the idea has been bantied around somewhat and there does seem to be a need for something like what you propose. I think it is definitely worth posting for further discussion...." Dag Bruck "I think your proposal is interesting, but I suggest you extend it with a discussion of ~const member functions." Done. Dag, thanks again for your time in looking at this proposal several times before I posted it. Ron Guilmette "I very much liked your ~const proposal. The only thing that I would suggest is that you make it (symmetrically) apply to both const and to volatile." Currently, ~volatile and similar constructs are mentioned but not discussed in my proposal. See another message in this clump with a header containing "Possible generalizations"... Jim Adcock "I support this ~const idea. I think it helps resolve a lot of the 'does const mean const?' debates." "...iff we use this opportunity to [deprecate cast-from-const]." Agreed. For details,