• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Subject: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:06:03 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: David Tolpin <dvd@d...>, "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <4D05972C-4ED1-11D8-B206-000A95A51C9E@t...>

> Hah!  I didn't know that, but I suspected that it couldn't actually be
> useful. Thank you.  -Tim

Well, one word in favor.

David points out that the implementation cannot stop the implementor
from doing a cast and breaking the guarantee, so he doesn't like const.
On the other hand, he expects the implementor to do the right thing
without for putatively-const values.

I don't get it.  Why not at least set things up so that (a) those
who get their documentation from the header file know what's going
on; and (b) those who want to break the rules will at least be forced
to "admit" (via const-cast) that they are doing so.

But hey, do what you want.  Just know that I think David's opinion
here is the most incorrect thing I've heard him say. :)
        /r$
--
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview      http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
    • From: Michael Fuller <msf@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Next by Date: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Previous by thread: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Next by thread: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread