Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:48 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > C++ has resisted, for two decades, the temptation of "improving" the | > meaning of volatile :-) considering that it is C's baby. | | Do you know what the semantics of: | | a; | | are in C and C++? | | :-(
As much as I hate it; the rule was not designed to "improve" over C-semantics of volatile. It is in the same exception-family I mentioned in the previous message. -- Gaby
