Am 07.07.2011 19:00, schrieb Alexander Klenin: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 03:55, Martin <f...@mfriebe.de> wrote: >> That doesn't make much sense either. Now const means different things >> depending on the type ? > > It already does. I agree it makes no sense, but this is much larger problem, > which deserves at least a separate discussion thread. > > Currently, there are four meaninigs of "const": > 1) "Const by value" -- like Integer > 2) "Const by reference" -- like shortstring > 3) "Const by reference, but not really const" -- like objects > 4) "Const by value, excapt rare breakage" -- AnsiString > (and interfaces, but let's not touch that can of worms in this thread :-) ) > > I propose to remove meaning (4). >
Unlogical. 2) and 4) are coupled. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
