On 09 Jul 2011, at 18:41, Jonas Maebe wrote: > That part of the manual is wrong. What const does is by design completely > implementation-dependent (except for cdecl/cppdecl routines, where it behaves > the same as in C/C++, and for mwpascal routines, where it behaves the same as > in MetroWerks Pascal). And yes, this is different from the meaning of const C > and C++ (which is why the meaning is specified separately there). And yes, > this means that it can be unsafe if you pass global variables as const and > the modify them in the called routine, and that every objection voiced > already 10 times in this thread applies. That is how const has always worked > since it was introduced in Turbo Pascal. And no, that does not mean this is > ideal, but rewriting the entire const handling is not going to happen.
And yes, that should all be mentioned in the manual. Jonas_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
