On 10/10/2013 05:11, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:inert incremented String* - new_steal_str(char *ptr, size_t size); + new_steal_str(const char *ptr, size_t size);It seems to me that the "steal" constructors should take `char*` instead of `const char*`. We have to cast away constness in the destructor when we invoke "free" on the stolen strings, right? The potential exists to create a situation where we free() non-heap memory and the compiler doesn't issue a warning.
You're right. Good catch. Nick
