• Georg Wrede (12/16) Feb 21 2006 Actually, the mere fact that a language purports to be _both_ high level...
• Craig Black (5/8) Feb 21 2006 Agreed. I like const and use it throughout my C++ code. And sometimes ...

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

nick wrote:
 Then there is the specific matter of the /in/ keyword being easily
 broken by a c-style pointer. There may be other high-level features
 that are compromised by low-level features. That has to be looked
 into.

Actually, the mere fact that a language purports to be _both_ high level 
and _to-the-metal_ (as D does), is a _sufficient_cause_ of such avenues 
of integrity compromise.

We simply can't _enforce_ e.g. constness in such a language. (Hell, if 
we tried all we could, someone could still circumvent it with an asm block!)

I'd be as bold as to say this goes for _all_ aspects of /secure/ or 
/robust/ language constructs.

----

In light of this, maybe we should get humble, and just accept the fact 
that const can at most be an expression of wish -- but as such, a very 
useful one?

"Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> writes:

 In light of this, maybe we should get humble, and just accept the fact 
 that const can at most be an expression of wish -- but as such, a very 
 useful one?

Agreed.  I like const and use it throughout my C++ code.  And sometimes I do 
circumvent it, but only when I know exactly what I'm doing.  const being a 
"hollow promise" does not bother me.  I like the fact that I can break the 
rules if I need to.

-Craig