$)CHarald van D)&k wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:14:07 +0000, Default User wrote:
> > $)CHarald van D)&k wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:03:43 -0500, Jack Klein wrote:
> >> > By definition in the C standard, the type of a string literal
> like >> > "abcdefgh" in the above program is array of char, and NOT
> array of >> > const char. "abcdefgh" is not constant data in C.
> >>
> >> It is not const-qualified, but it is constant.
> >
> > It may or may not be. It is undefined behavior to attempt to modify
> > the contents of a string literal.
>
> It's constant in that its value isn't allowed to change without a
> specific action by the program,

Ummm, that's true of every variable.

> and that all such actions by the
> program are not allowed by the language.

The actions constitute undefined behavior. If they were disallowed,
then they'd require a diagnostic.

> If you perform such an
> action anyway, then sure, it's possible for its value to change, just
> like it's possible for the value of a const-qualified object to
> change.

You're missing the point. The strings are not required to be constant.

The effect is that programs that don't treat the strings as if they
were constant exhibit UB, but that's NOT the same thing. Details
matter. Meanings matter.



Brian