On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:24:49 +0530, Anand Kumar Saha
| The result is implementation-defined if an attempt is
| made to change a const.
| That makes sense for gcc to fire warning instead of error (a=20).
that makes me wonder, how can such a specification be left implementation
dependent. that evidently takes away the very purpose of const keyword.
shouldn't this be enforced rather than leaving it to the compiler writer
to decide ?