const comparison in C and C++

[T. William Wells]

In article <8529 at smoke.ARPA> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
: In article <785 at proxftl.UUCP> bill at proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
: >In article <8516 at smoke.ARPA> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
: >:       void copy(const char *source, char *destination, unsigned count);
: >: ... modification of any storage validly accessible via
: >: the second parameter is NOT prohibited.
: >Sorry Doug, it's undefined.
:
: Sorry yourself, it's the way I stated.
:
: >"If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with a
: >const-qualified type through use of an lvalue with
: >non-const-qualified type, the behavior is undefined."
:
: This is simply not relevant.  The parameter declarations do not define
: objects.

I see what you mean.  I didn't interpret the "defined with" when
reading the section.  And I'm not *too* sorry because this means
I don't have to go and fix up that copy routine (and a few
others) in our library.  :-)

---
Bill
novavax!proxftl!bill