$)CHarald van D)&k wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:07:11 +0000, Default User wrote:
> > $)CHarald van D)&k wrote:
> >> That would be why I'm trying to explain why I believe what I do,
> and >> why I've asked you a question to clarify your position. You
> have not >> answered my question, so I will ask it again: how
> constant does >> something have to be for you to consider it constant?
> >
> > All you've demonstrated so far is that nothing is a constant.
> > That's not exactly your going-in position.
>
> Quoting myself from a few messages back:
>
> Well, then there are simply no constants in C.

Not, however, your going-in position.

> While by my definition of constant, they do exist in C, I also accept
> that there are legitimate alternative definitions by which they do
> not.
>
> But you still haven't answered my question. If you can explain to me
> where you draw the line between constants and non-constants, then it
> becomes possible to tell whether your interpretation (even while
> different from mine) is self-consistent. If it is, then I disagree
> with your terminology, but may agree with your conclusions. If it is
> not, then I do not agree with either your terminology or your
> conclusions.

Well, one definition would be anything const-qualified plus anything
that is a(n): integer-constant, floating-constant,
enumeration-constant, or character-constant.

Of course, that's not quite what I said orginally, plus you already
know that string literals aren't const-qualified. So with that I would
have to be less waffly and just say that string literals are not
constant at all.




Brian