Re: I think references should have been const by default

From	Manfred <noname@add.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: I think references should have been const by default
Date	2021-10-26 17:15 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<sl961t$qs4$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(12 earlier) <sl5ug4$qov$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sl6ecq$11uu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sl6go4$pjq$1@dont-email.me> <sl6k3n$e8m$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735op2cv0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/25/2021 8:11 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:
>> On 10/25/2021 4:59 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 10/25/21 10:19 AM, RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> No idea what UB means, but what'll happen is it'll crash immediately so you'll
>>>> soon find out.
>>> UB means "Undefined Behavior", a technical term from the C standard
>>> which does NOT mean "behavior for which there is no definition". It
>>> means "behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program
>>> construct or of erroneous data, for which this document imposes no
>>> requirements" (3.4.3). Note that "this document" refers to the C
>>> standard; other documents (such as compiler documentation or ABI
>>> standards) might define the behavior, without changing the fact that is
>>> qualifies as "undefined behavior" as far as the C standard is concerned.
>>
>> Thanks for the quote, it made me compare it with the definition of UB
>> in the C++ standard, which simply states "behavior for which this
>> International Standard imposes no requirements".
>>
>> The lack of the sentence "upon use of a nonportable or erroneous
>> program construct or of erroneous data" actually relegates the
>> language at the mercy of language lawyers, and led to the UB bloat
>> that affects C++ nowadays.
> [...]
> 
> I don't see how the omission of "upon use of a nonportable or erroneous
> program construct or of erroneous data" in the C++ standard makes any
> real difference.

It depends on the reader: whether it is some sort of text processing 
machine, a language lawyer or a human being.

> 
> C definition, all standard editions:
>      behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct
>      or of erroneous data, for which this International Standard imposes
>      no requirements
> 
> C++ definition, before C++11:
>      behavior, such as might arise upon use of an erroneous program
>      construct or erroneous data, for which this International Standard
>      imposes no requirement
> 
> C++ definition, C++11 and later:
>      behavior for which this International Standard imposes no requirements
> 
> In all cases, "undefined behavior" is determined either by an explicit
> statement or by the omission of any definition of the behavior (or, in
> C, by violation of a "shall" outside a constraint).
> 

For a human being, the additional sentence makes a difference, simply 
because it is there: it means that the writer had a reason to write it, 
and such writer's intent is part of the message that matters to a human 
reader.

More specifically:

In C, the additional sentence actually poses a distinctive 
characterization of the code that qualifies for undefined behavior, i.e. 
"nonportable or erroneus" code, which is something else than saying 
"anything that is not explicitly defined here". Now, the problem is that 
the C definition actually redirects to a definition of "nonportable" and 
(more relevantly) "erroneous", so a machine reader might trigger an 
"undefined reference" error and stop parsing.
A language lawyer might interpret the wording as implying that anything 
that is not explicitly defined is considered "nonportable" or 
"erroneous", but that's an interpretation which is still to be proven to 
hold in court, since the other party's lawyer might interpret the same 
wording as UB being <<anything that is "nonportable" or "erroneous" 
/and/ is not covered by this standard's requirements>>

Schematically, one might think of the entire set of possible source code 
to be validated against the standard, and divide it into the subsets:
1) Explicitly defined valid code (e.g. syntax of declarations)
2) Explicitly defined invalid code (e.g. constraint violations)
3) Code which is not explicitly defined by 1) and 2)

Ideally, for a perfect standard, subset 3) would be empty - i.e. to make 
a machine reader happy. In practice, standards are (luckily) written by 
humans, so there may be something left in subset 3). To me, the 
additional sentence is intended to give a rationale to discriminate 
which is which in this area.
That said, lawyers may still complain that a non-empty subset 3) leads 
to ambiguity, and this may be a serious problem in court.

Pre-C++11 C++ apparently tried to address this potential ambiguity by 
adding "such as", thus suggesting that the category of "nonportable" or 
"erroneous" code is meant to be an example of code for which the 
standard poses "no requirements".
The wording may appear to suggest that subset 3) is meant to be included 
in subset 2), but the authors didn't feel brave enough to say this 
explicitly, and left the categories of "nonportable" and "erroneous" in.
The fact is that, obviously, placing subset 3) into subset 2) poses a 
heavy burden on the standard itself.

C++11-and-later C++ was actually brave enough to assert that anything 
that is not explicitly defined in the standard is "undefined behavior", 
which would just be a self-identity assertion if it weren't for the note 
that clarifies that UB is a very Bad Thing™, unless such behavior is 
actually defined by the implementation.

The result is that the latest C++ definition of UB is so strong that it 
suddenly raised the bar of the Standard's quality requirement by several 
levels, thus opening the Pandora's box of countless examples of UB that 
affect nowadays' C++, to the point of invalidating even sample code in 
Bjarne's TC++PL that has been valid since the beginning of time, and led 
to cryptic additions to the standard itself (std::launder, anyone?)
This might be seen as a process of improvement of the language, but so 
far this seems controversial.

Thread

I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-21 05:23 +0000
  Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-21 08:54 +0200
    Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-21 09:48 +0000
      Re: I think references should have been const by default Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-10-21 12:55 +0300
      Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-21 12:57 +0200
        Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-21 13:40 +0000
          Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-21 15:04 +0100
            Re: I think references should have been const by default Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-10-21 16:41 +0200
              Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-21 14:57 +0000
            Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-21 14:51 +0000
            Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-21 12:09 -0400
              Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-21 23:49 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-21 16:21 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-22 16:14 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-22 12:04 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-22 20:47 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-22 13:29 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-23 11:54 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-23 11:22 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-23 12:35 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-10-23 13:23 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-23 13:57 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-10-23 21:02 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-23 15:07 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-23 21:15 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-23 21:12 -0700
              Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-22 11:13 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-22 19:18 -0400
            Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-22 04:41 +0000
              Re: I think references should have been const by default Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2021-10-23 21:30 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-25 04:51 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2021-10-26 00:53 +0100
            Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-22 09:46 +0200
              Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-22 15:48 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-23 12:21 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-23 12:06 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-23 18:45 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-23 18:58 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-24 12:11 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-24 23:11 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-10-24 16:18 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-25 00:58 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-25 08:21 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-25 09:47 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-10-25 12:33 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-25 14:19 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-25 10:59 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-10-25 17:56 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-25 11:11 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-10-26 17:15 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-29 06:41 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-25 16:14 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-25 13:14 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 08:18 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-26 12:39 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-10-26 14:29 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-26 15:11 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-26 09:49 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-26 18:38 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-26 11:20 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-26 20:32 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-26 22:18 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-27 04:43 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-27 08:29 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-29 06:32 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-11-01 06:12 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-01 08:53 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-01 11:26 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-11-02 16:19 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-02 12:54 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-11-02 23:49 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-11-03 00:38 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 14:36 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-26 15:55 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 15:26 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-26 20:35 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-27 04:44 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 11:27 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 10:31 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 14:42 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 11:22 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 15:30 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 12:23 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 12:51 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 14:34 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-26 12:57 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-27 07:57 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-27 08:47 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-27 14:29 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-28 05:17 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-28 09:30 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-29 04:47 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-29 05:11 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-29 08:40 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-11-01 06:15 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-27 11:07 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-27 14:30 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-27 17:30 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-27 15:46 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-10-27 16:13 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-27 11:39 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-27 15:51 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-10-27 17:21 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-28 09:29 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-28 11:20 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-27 12:26 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2021-10-31 09:22 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-11-01 00:13 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-28 05:20 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-27 23:10 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-28 09:30 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-29 04:51 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-29 08:39 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-11-01 06:34 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2021-10-27 17:41 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-27 19:02 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2021-10-27 18:21 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-27 11:38 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default JohnnyCameLater@whatsthetime.net - 2021-10-27 15:49 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-27 12:36 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-27 04:57 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-25 18:19 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-25 10:48 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 08:21 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-26 08:37 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 09:02 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-26 11:14 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 14:35 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-27 05:01 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-29 06:34 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 10:43 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 15:21 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-26 22:32 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-27 05:04 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 10:42 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 14:48 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 11:52 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-26 10:22 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-26 10:27 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 14:06 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-29 06:45 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-29 11:11 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-25 07:39 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 10:59 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-26 05:29 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-26 08:53 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-26 08:23 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-26 08:40 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-26 05:18 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-10-26 09:07 +0200
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-26 11:03 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-25 10:39 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-25 10:56 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-25 10:30 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-25 14:39 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-25 11:05 -0400
                Re: I think references should have been const by default "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-25 12:45 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-26 11:20 -0700
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-25 05:00 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-10-25 12:13 +0100
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-26 05:36 +0000
                Re: I think references should have been const by default Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-10-25 16:58 +0200
    Re: I think references should have been const by default "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2021-10-22 12:28 -0700
  Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-21 09:12 +0000
    Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-21 09:52 +0000
      Re: I think references should have been const by default RacingRabbit@watershipdown.co.uk - 2021-10-21 10:36 +0000
        Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-22 04:45 +0000
    Re: I think references should have been const by default James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-21 12:07 -0400
  Re: I think references should have been const by default Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-10-21 12:18 +0300
  Re: I think references should have been const by default Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-21 13:13 +0200
    Re: I think references should have been const by default Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-10-21 15:08 +0200
    Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-22 04:45 +0000
      Re: I think references should have been const by default Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-22 07:55 +0200
        Re: I think references should have been const by default Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-22 11:21 +0000
  Re: I think references should have been const by default "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-10-21 13:22 +0200
    Re: I think references should have been const by default Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-10-22 04:48 +0000
  Re: I think references should have been const by default Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-10-21 13:57 +0200
  Re: I think references should have been const by default Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-21 21:27 +0000
  Re: I think references should have been const by default Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2021-10-24 14:20 +0000

csiph-web