From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-04 09:19:38
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > I think there is. It's a giant loophole in the general const-correcness
>> > all programs.
>> This kind of alarmist hyperbole makes it hard to take any of your
>> arguments seriously.
> Look, discussions get heated sometimes. Some arguments are better
> than others. I have no problem taking some arguments serious and
> while thinking some others don't hold. And I see no reason why you
> shoudln't be able to do that either.
I don't have time to waste reading every word of every post. When
somebody posts this sort of thing, I tend to discard everything
they're saying as bogus.
> It is still a big whole in the type system
> and it should quite frankly be easy for most to see that, let alone
> experienced programmers that have advocated const-corretness in
> other contexts.
Wow, errr... I don't know what to say. Whatever you think "should"
be, it is apparently not so easy for other experienced programmers to
see things your way. Do you think it's possible they know something
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk