I didn't.

«There is no such thing as "construction time" for a constant.»

Not "trying to prove".

If it's clearer: Why are are you wasting your time prove they're created at compile-time? Like you said, it's an undeniable truth.

So I demonstrated that you were talking utter drivel.

Again, where? did something get erased? I see no mention of constant variables or constant parameters.

You didn't clear anything up :(

You said:

All three are constructed at run-time.

Which I've comprehensively demonstrated is utter drivel.

The rest is just pointless noise. I'm done. Are you?

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Which I've comprehensively demonstrated is utter drivel.

No, you only demonstrated it's the case for constants, which wasn't one of the three!

When you're done lying, run the following programs:

#include <stdio.h>

int main() {
   int i;
   for (i=0; i<2; ++i) {
      const int j = i;
      printf("%d\n", j);
   }

   return 0;
}
[download]

#include <stdio.h>

int f(const int k) {
   printf("%d\n", k);
}

int main() {
   int i;
   for (i=0; i<2; ++i) {
      f(i);
   }

   return 0;
}
[download]

Unless you can demonstrate that people don't consider "j" and "k" to be read-only, you haven't demonstrated anything.