On 07/11/11 08:53, David Seikel wrote: > In this case, the warnings are either saying that one of the functions > is defined wrong, or that I should just cast to const for one to shut > it up. > > Personally I think that making a function parameter const when the whole > point of passing that parameter is for the function to change it is a > bit silly. But constness has had it's own flame wars, and I did not > write either of the functions I'm calling. shrugs > > So right now, I'm just gonna cast and shut up the warning. I'll leave > it to others to open up the entire const debate again if they desire. I > don't really care, I'll just use what's there. And If I have to cast > something to const to shut up something that is bitching about the non > constness of something that is REALLY not const, then so be it.
I haven't looked at the code, but "const char **" doesn't mean it's a const. It's a pointer to a "const char *" which just means: your parameter will be populated with a "const char *", don't free it. There's no const debate (none that I'm aware of anyway), especially not in this case (again, without reading the source, just judging from the error). I guess the reason it's const is because it's a stringshare, which should be const and indeed doesn't change and should not be changed. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
