Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: I think references should have been const by default
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 06:32:56 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <86wnlwdkhj.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <skqtfl$17n5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <skuj0p$t60$1@dont-email.me> <sl0nmu$bn3$1@dont-email.me> <sl0qcj$sub$1@dont-email.me> <sl1e73$sl7$1@dont-email.me> <sl5pdi$4au$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sl5ug4$qov$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sl6ecq$11uu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sl6go4$pjq$1@dont-email.me> <sl6l56$10d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sl6oln$odm$1@dont-email.me> <sl8dlg$nav$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sl8pee$5c3$1@dont-email.me> <87v91jzzgt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sl92b8$83g$1@dont-email.me> <87y26f20kh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <slald9$ogo$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b7f56eff5ad6c7d9130605d054ce58ef"; logging-data="5278"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Dp9DG9gS9qOheBmORYTLR5SVO/U5loY0="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tnd8N9AtjWSrp5m5WSXqj32ExKs= sha1:+86rXxBrRYfZdmxOBJqIBrIyQ9o=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:82174

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:

> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I tried it in C++ before posting (as I'd thought that "ABC" would have
>>> type const char*) but it seemed to work.  (Using -Wall -std=c++14.)
>>
>> And you didn't bother to mention the diagnostic?  I get
>>     warning:  ISO C++ forbids converting a string constant to ???char*???  [-Wwrite-strings]
>> And of course with "-pedantic-errors" it becomes a fatal error.
>
> If gcc (or whichever compiler this is) doesn't give an outright error from
> trying to assign a const pointer to a non-const one without an explicit
> cast, then it's non-standard-conforming [...]

I belive that statement is not correct.  Can you cite a passage (or
passages) in the C++ standard that supports this assertion?