const warning...

[Michael N. Moran]

Robert Dewar wrote:

>>If you are arguing that there is a fundamental and important difference
>>between these two code snippets, then I would beg to differ.
>>    
>>
>
>Fine, no problem in differing, you don't have to beg for it, but I definitely
>think there is a fundamental and important difference. Remember that the
>request here is for an optional warning, presumably not on by default.
>So the burden of proof on your side is to argue that it is unreasonable
>for *anyone* to want such a feature. I certainly am not saying that
>everyone should be forced to program in the style that this warning
>would imply, but I think it is definitely a useful option for those
>of us who think the other way from you :-)
>
>  
>
Would this optional warning be turned on with -Wall ?
If so, it would have a big impact on those of us who
use -Wall -Werror .

-- 
Michael N. Moran           (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct.         (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA 30144

"... abstractions save us time working, but they don't
 save us time learning."
Joel Spolsky, The Law of Leaky Abstractions

The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1