Tom Lane writes:
> Yeah, people have started to use 'const' in new code, but the older
> stuff doesn't use it, which means that the net effect is probably
> more annoyance than help. I'm afraid that if we attack this in an
> incremental way, we'll end up with code that may have a lot of const
> markers in the declarations, but the actual code is riddled with
> explicit casts to remove const because at one time or another that
> was necessary in a particular place.
>
> Can anyone think of a way to get from here to there without either
> a lot of leftover cruft, or a "big bang" massive changeover?
What I usually do if I feel a parameter could be made const is to
propagate the change as far as necessary to the underlying functions.
>From time to time this turns out to be impossible at some layer. BUT:
This is an indicator that you really don't know whether the value is const
so you shouldn't declare it thus.
IMHO, a better project than putting const qualifiers all over interfaces
that you are not familiar with would be to clean up all the -Wcast-qual
warnings.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
