Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In 2nd paragraph, the author states:

    void foo(const int *);
    ...
> The function foo takes a const pointer, which is a promise from the author of foo that it won’t modify the value of x. Given this information, it would seem the compiler may assume x is always zero, and therefore y is always zero.


It is clear that the author means "pointer to const" there.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: