Subject: Re: __UNCONST(a)
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Martin Husemann <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 07/02/2004 09:25:18
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:36:47AM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> Yes, but it's usually "the type of this thingy", and having to go look
> up what type the thingy actually is is a pain - especially if there's
> any significant chance that type's textual name will change.

Since we (as far as I understood) would use this primarily for broken-by-
standard APIs that we can neither fix nor change, I don't think providing
the correct type explicitly would be a big burden. It should allow the
compiler better checking still.

Of course typeof() or const_cast<>() would help ;-)