Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Possible generalizations of ~const Message-ID: <4198@lupine.NCD.COM> Date: 2 Mar 91 21:21:52 GMT References: Distribution: comp Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA Lines: 32 In article ngo@tammy.harvard.edu (Tom Ngo) writes: + +Background information to this posting was in a very recent summary. + ... + ~volatile Do allow optimization on this object [even if the + enclosing object is declared volatile]. + +Joe Buck was against ~volatile on the +grounds that it would add virtually nothing to the language; it would +"give a tiny bit of useful information to an optimizing compiler, +[but] it would gain nothing in expressive capability." + +Joe Buck and Ron Guilmette felt that symmetry and +simplicity of implementation might be good reasons to permit a +~volatile specifier. One could argue that ~volatile has very little usefulness, however the same could be said for `volatile' itself. Does that mean that we should get rid of `volatile'? I think not. Regarding the `symmetry' argument in favor of making ~const and ~volatile into one unified proposal, it is my opinion that it would actually be *easier* for implementors to implement both of them than it would be for implementors to implement either one of them alone. That's because of the tight relationship between const and volatile (within a compiler). -- // Ron Guilmette - C++ Entomologist // Internet: rfg@ncd.com uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg // New motto: If it ain't broke, try using a bigger hammer.