On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:07:05PM -0700, Melissa O'Neill wrote:
I'm in the camp that believes that the committee shouldn't change the semantics of volatile.
Many good arguments, particularly your point about "old volatile" vs "new volatile".
I agree.
I've no objection in principle to adding new functionality, but overloading the old keyword doesn't seem like a great idea. The best reason to overload the old keyword would be if the current definition of volatile has no utility, but AFAICT, the current definition does say enough to be useful in some circumstances.
-- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
