Quoting Andy Ross : > The confusion seems to be that Microsoft declared strchr() as taking > and returning a const pointer. Which is broken, because strchr() > returns a pointer into the *same* memory it got. The constness needs > to be synchronized between the pointers, which is outside the > capabilities of the C language. So programmers have to choose between > a slightly "unsafe" function that drops const and one that requires a > cast to use with a non-const string.
No, the confusion seems to come from the difference between standard C runtime and standard C++ runtime. MSVC8 wants to conform to the latter when compiling C++ code. Look at that page : http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/cstring/strrchr.html In C++, we now have : const char *strrchr( const char *, int ); char *strrchr( char *, int ); that preserve constness and in C : char *strrchr( const char *, int ); that drop constness a const_cast ( or simply a cast ) wouldn't make the code worse than it is now. -Fred -- Frédéric Bouvier http://frfoto.free.fr Photo gallery - album photo http://www.fotolia.fr/p/2278/partner/2278 Other photo gallery http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/ FlightGear Scenery Designer ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
