On 3/12/2010 10:50 AM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:39 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 3/12/2010 5:21 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> It is *totally* fine to add a 'const' to a parameter that was not
>>> there before. That does not change the ABI whatsoever, and it will not
>>> break the API for callers. It merely gives them more information at
>>> compile time.
>>
>> int oldfunc (const char *result);
>>
>> int brokefunc ()
>> {
>> char *res = oldfunc();
>> }
>>
>> doesn't compile on a single platform I know of.
>>
>> Your statement makes no sense; how does adding const'ness to char *result
>> not come with source code level compatibility breakage?
>
> I think he means it was the 'const' which was not previously present, not the
> parameter itself.
That is my understanding too. In this example, int oldfunc(char *result) is
transformed
through the addition of a const. And the claim still makes no sense, for the
reasons that
I point out above :)
