[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > We are asking for data that is const char * const *, but passing in > char * const * data. This causes incompatible pointer type warnings when > compiling Apache.
In that case, it seems appropriate to cast the data being passed in -- adding more const is always okay. (Yes, it's true, I have been totally, yea willingly, brainwashed by Greg Stein. :-) ) > APR is actually not complaining, but it does seem a bit odd to me that we > are asking for stricter access than the underlying functions we are > using. One of the arguments made for this commit was that we may actually > get const data, so we had better be sure that we treat it as const. I > disagree. If we are given const data, then we have a problem, because > POSIX doesn't state that the C Run-Time won't change the data underneath > us. > > We NEED to match POSIX in this, and require char *const * data. Ah, yes. If the underlying functions aren't promising that, then we can't either. Too bad. (Somehow I suspect that they never do change the data, and that their prototypes are just because someone was being loose, but we can't know that with certainty, I suppose.) Okay. I withdraw my (only implied) +1 on adding the consts. :-) -K
