i've found const pretty useful, dispite the fact it does create some inconsistencies. it's chief virtue is that you can tell without looking any further than the prototype that a function that takes a const char* makes it's own copy, if it needs one.
if you're careful with const, i think it can be a help in preventing some silly mistakes that will cause a benign looking program to get up and fandango on core. unfortunately, glibc, for example, is not very consistant. dispite the fact that it returns a pointer into envp, glibc getenv is declared as "char* getenv(const char*);". - erik Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | | > I'm trying to find a reference to a tirade against | > the C const type qualifier. I think it was writtent | > during the ANSI-isation of C by dmr or perhaps bwk, | > (or was it was rob). | | http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/dmr-on-noalias.html | http://tinyurl.com/8435y | | The second (actually a Google Groups url) explains the first. | | Russ
