Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!princeton!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Why put constants on the stack?
Message-ID: <6959@alice.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 7-Jun-87 02:56:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.6959
Posted: Sun Jun  7 02:56:28 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jun-87 20:05:11 EDT
References: <165700009@uiucdcsb>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 12

In article <165700009@uiucdcsb>, kenny@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes:
> Why are ``const'' variables (other than parameters, of course) not
> assumed to be static?  In addition to the above annoyance, it seems
> like a pointless waste of stack space.  Have I overlooked something?

Saying a variable is a ``const'' is saying that its value won't change
over its lifetime.  It doesn't promise to initialize it to a constant.
There's no problem in saying

	int n;
	cin >> n;
	const k = n * 2;