Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | There is no point in type qualifiers if they can be simply changed at | > | will. Do not lie about your objects, and you will not be screwed over. | > | > only if the language you're implementing the compiler for says so, no | > matter what nifty transformation you could have done. | > | | Except that nobody seems to agree that is what the language actually | says.
The way I see it is that people who designed and wrote the standard offer their view and interpretation of of they wrote and some people are determined to offer a different interpretation so that they can claim they are well-founded to apply their transformations. | BTW, telling us what C++ says is not really interesting, and only adds | to confusion, since we are talking solely about C here No. The issue pops up in both languages and they share the same transformation machinery, even if the bug was originally reported only for C. I would hate to have to go through this again with you, so I rather make sure that you understand. No confusion added. -- Gaby
