On 11/12/08, René Bürgel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Tall schrieb: > > On 12/11/2008, René Bürgel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If all members of the union are const, why don't you just > > > make the union itself const? > > > > The const for the union seems to be ignored > > I'd say, that's the real bug, at least from my point of view. I > don't know, if this case is handled in the standard, but as > "const union" is declaration and definition the const shouldn't > be ignored.
I doubt that the C++ committee has ever addressed this issue. The general thinking would be "if you cannot change fields, you don't need the union". I see why the approach was taken. The C++ draft standard is in review now. If you have specific recommendations, now would be a good time to forward them as comments to your national representative to ISO. -- Lawrence Crowl
