Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After the recent churn in const-qualification in coreutils.git, there are > still > a couple of redundant qualifiers, as found by: > > $ git grep '\bconst\b[^*]*\bconst\b' -- '*.[ch]' > src/ls.c:static const char const *long_time_format[2] = > src/ls.c:static const qsortFunc const sort_functions[][2][2][2] = > src/od.c:static const char const charname[33][4] = > > Sounds like an updated maintainer rule to check for redundant const might be > useful? Or, if you like enforcing your HACKING rule of 'type const' > over 'const type', would adding a syntax-check rule to look for 'static const' > be useful?
Thanks for keeping watch! Anything to protect me from myself ;-) If you feel like it, a patch would be most welcome. Or I'll get to it. I'm reluctant to make syntax-check rules too idiosyncratic. Might be better to make them more generally useful. That's why I relaxed the "struct option"-checking one to accept either "const struct option" or "struct option const". _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
