> There are circumstances where you may cast away the const knowing that,
> in practice, it will not be modified, but you can never cast it away in
> order to be able to modify it. That is just plain wrong and will break
> things.
Unclear. My copy of the standard isn't at hand, but I don't recall much
discussion of casting-away const'ness in the *C* standard. I'm pretty
confident that such results are undefined (i.e., implementation
specific).
Given that, it becomes a pragmatic issue, rather than a pedantic one,
and
it seems entirely reasonable to me that a compiler that really put
objects
in read-only would generate errors (not warnings) if you made such a
cast.
Also, consider the likelyhood of actually having a static const OpenSSL
object.
It is a matter of taste. I prefer method 3, myself, which allows both
pragmatism and pedanticism to have their way, site-specific.
/r$
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
