Heads-up: volatile and C++

[Mark Mitchell]

Joe Buck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:07:05PM -0700, Melissa O'Neill wrote:
> 
>>I'm in the camp that believes that the committee shouldn't change the  
>>semantics of volatile.
> 
> 
> Many good arguments, particularly your point about "old volatile"
> vs "new volatile".

I agree.

I've no objection in principle to adding new functionality, but 
overloading the old keyword doesn't seem like a great idea.  The best 
reason to overload the old keyword would be if the current definition of 
volatile has no utility, but AFAICT, the current definition does say 
enough to be useful in some circumstances.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304