Interesting. A conversion to C++ shows that C++ will not accept it.
#include <iostream>
struct S {
const int a;
const S *n;
S(const int a_, const S * n_)
: a(a_), n(n_)
{}
};
struct C {
S s;
C(S s_) : s(s_) {}
};
void test(const S *c, S *m)
{
auto cont = new C(S(5, NULL));
auto chain = new S(4, &cont->s);
// cont->s = S(6, new S(7, NULL)); // non-static const member const
int S::a, can't use default assignment operator
// cont->s.a = 6; // assignment of read-only
data-member S::a
cont->s.n = new S(7, NULL);
}
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Pal Engstad [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:40 PM
To: Discussions about the BitC language
Subject: Re: [bitc-dev] Mutability, again
I meant pointer-to-const, but I think I got it the wrong way:
void f(const Pair *a, const Pair *b);
void g(Pair *a, Pair *b);
void test(const Pair *c, Pair *m)
{
f(c, m); // No error or warning.
g(c, m); // Error
}
const.cc:11: error: invalid conversion from const Pair* to Pair*
const.cc:11: error: initializing argument 1 of void g(Pair*, Pair*)
PKE.
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan S. Shapiro [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:26 PM
To: Discussions about the BitC language
Subject: Re: [bitc-dev] Mutability, again
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Pal Engstad
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Well, the problem is akin to using a pointer as an argument to a function
accepting a const-pointer (in C++), which is an error. I would expect BitC to
be at least as stringent!
const pointer or pointer to const?
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
