const

[Walter Bright]

Russell Lewis wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Russell Lewis wrote:
>>> Until we have this fundamental, mathematical understanding of const, 
>>> we are just tweaking and hacking and patching in hopes we can come up 
>>> with something good enough.
>>
>> But the current const regime *is* based on a mathematical notion. The 
>> reason the previous regimes failed is not because the notion was 
>> wrong, but because we had tried to support some special use cases.
> 
> Are you referring to transitive const?  If so, I agree that this is 
> *one* forward step in the formalization of const.  A very good, very 
> important step.  But it is not, alone, a complete analysis of all of the 
> things I described above.
> 
> Or am I missing something?

I guess I'm missing something you mean.