On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 04:06, Florian Klämpfl <flor...@freepascal.org> wrote: > Am 07.07.2011 19:00, schrieb Alexander Klenin: >> 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.
This whole construct is unlogical. Logically, "const a" should mean just "assignment to a is a compile-time error". But this is not achievable due to compatibility reasons. Still, I suggest that (4) is a (small, but still) evil, and sould be removed. -- Alexander S. Klenin _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
