Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | > | There is no point in type qualifiers if they can be simply changed at > | > | will. Do not lie about your objects, and you will not be screwed over. > | > > | > only if the language you're implementing the compiler for says so, no > | > matter what nifty transformation you could have done. > | > > | > | Except that nobody seems to agree that is what the language actually > | says. > > The way I see it is that people who designed and wrote the standard > offer their view and interpretation of of they wrote and some people > are determined to offer a different interpretation so that they can > claim they are well-founded to apply their transformations.
If "people who designed and wrote the standard" meant to say something, perhaps they should have said so explicitly. But that's very hard to do with volatile, since its definition necessarily falls outside the "as if" semantics of the language. You know, the more this goes on the more I believe we should send X3J11 a request for clarification. Perhaps X3J11 has been disbanded, so there may be problems. But we should ask. Andrew.
