>
> > Since some strings are non-constant (the are allocated) - I believe
> > the `const' qualifier in the structure declaration is incorrect.
>
> 'const' just means "I will not be modifying this"; it's a way for a
> function prototype to constrain the function's implementation.
>
Yes - it is..
However,
"a string"
is a const array of char.
malloc(9)
isn't. (And, can't be, since you have to, presumably,
malloc the space and then write something meaningful
to it...)
So, if you declare a variable as
const char *
and then have different "constness" in assigning to that data,
you are asking for the one variable to be both `const' and non-`const'...
I was taking it from the "other side" (not the call to free() side, but
the declaration of the data type...) Saying that the datum isn't
actually `const' - it's only "sometimes const" (and only during
the static initialization.) "sometimes const" doesn't make sense...
But - then, if you remove the `const' - you get warnings from
the initialization - assigning a pointer-to-const to a pointer-to-non-const.
So... what's a programmer to do? That's the issue, right?
- Dave R. -
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
