home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!ark
- From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: const on pass by value
- Message-ID: <23312@alice.att.com>
- Date: 25 Jul 92 14:51:06 GMT
- Article-I.D.: alice.23312
- References: <1992Jul24.151010.11969@PacBell.COM> <1992Jul24.185201.13330@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
- Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
- Lines: 15
-
- In article <1992Jul24.185201.13330@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
-
- > I think the following should be legal:
-
- > void foo (int a);
- > void foo (const int a) { .... } // SAME as foo above
-
- It is much easier to describe and understand the language if any difference
- at all in argument types means that the functions are different. That ideal
- is not quite possible because C mandates an array/pointer equivalence,
- but I think complicating that rule further should require some corresponding
- benefit.
- --
- --Andrew Koenig
- ark@europa.att.com
-