Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!husc6!ngo From: ngo@tammy.harvard.edu (Tom Ngo) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Responses to ~const 1.6: Name change Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 91 16:42:36 GMT Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Distribution: comp Organization: Harvard Chemistry Department Lines: 26 Background information to this posting was in a very recent summary. Rahul Dhesi suggested that !const might be more natural than ~const. Here are two reasons I originally chose "~const" instead of "!const": 1. !const seems to connote that the specified member is merely "not const". The semantics of my proposal call for a more active *overriding* of constness that would otherwise be taken on by virtue of membership in an enclosing structure. I feel that this meaning is more closely suggested by ~const ("destroy constness"?). 2. People are used to seeing ~ in declarations (as in destructors), whereas the idea of seeing ! is more foreign. This is one of those important but difficult-to-debate aesthetic issues. !const does seem like a good alternative. I could go either way, but I lean toward ~const. Comments? -- Tom Ngo ngo@harvard.harvard.edu 617/495-1768 lab number, leave message