the "const" qualifier

[Doug McDonald]

>
>Well, yes, but not in the way you meant it.  A technically defective hack
>("noalias") was indeed put in the standard at the last minute (second public
>review) to satisfy someone's (the number crunchers') semi-political agenda.
>There was, quite legitimately and properly, a storm of protest from almost
>everyone else in sight, including Dennis Ritchie.  Partly because the hack
>really was technically defective, as written.  So it got hastily taken out
>again.  Something along those lines might indeed have been the best solution,
>but it was introduced far too late and without adequate prior thought.  If
>I am not mistaken, it was also an invention of the committee rather than
>proven prior art, which is a big no-no for a standards committee.
>

Apparently X3 now has been taken by serious second thoughts about
their subcommittees (i.e. J3) inventing new languages, as they have
decided to contine the old one (Fortran77). The flamage in comp.std.c
(and the .lang group) is as nothing, compared to the number of participants,
as is the amount in comp.lang.fortran - in which X3J3 has invented a
language so wholly new that X3 is having to give it a new name. 
Thankfully, X3J11 resisted the temptation.

On the other hand, it looks like X3J3 is going to botch the technical
requirements of the public review sufficiently badly that there will
have to be another one! (They are not going to get out their
replies to the last one - two years ago - in time!).

Doug McDonald