On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 03:55, Martin <f...@mfriebe.de> wrote: > That doesn't make much sense either. Now const means different things > depending on the type ?
It already does. I agree it makes no sense, but this is much larger problem, which deserves at least a separate discussion thread. Currently, there are four meaninigs of "const": 1) "Const by value" -- like Integer 2) "Const by reference" -- like shortstring 3) "Const by reference, but not really const" -- like objects 4) "Const by value, excapt rare breakage" -- AnsiString (and interfaces, but let's not touch that can of worms in this thread :-) ) I propose to remove meaning (4). -- Alexander S. Klenin _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
