Const sucks

[Regan Heath]

Nathan Reed wrote:
> Janice Caron wrote:
>> On 9/11/07, Nathan Reed <nathaniel.reed at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For a regular declaration of a const variable, the
>>> compiler can optimize away the stored version if it can determine that
>>> the address is never taken, but this often isn't possible (think of
>>> class member variables - the compiler can't guarantee that no client
>>> code will ever take the address).
>>
>> Then just decree that it be illegal to take the address of a const
>> class member variable. Problem solved.
> 
> That places totally unnecessary restrictions on the programmer...there's 
> absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to take the address of 
> something const.
> 
>> I dislike your macro idea, because I want my consts to have a type. I
>> /like/ type safety, and I want to keep it. I want my constants to be
>> of the type I declare them to be, not just a piece of text.
> 
> It's not /my/ macro idea. :)  (For the record, I don't really like the 
> idea of using the macro keyword for this, either.)  Although, as other 
> people have pointed out, this doesn't break type safety, just makes the 
> type not explicitly stated in the code.

In that way it's a bit like 'auto'

Regan