On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If it doesn't uglify the code, there aren't any negatives. I'm >> just saying we may not be able to get very far before we run up >> against that issue. For example, in the OP, Thomas wrote: >> >> 7. I made a list_head_const function, which can be used used to >> get a pointer to the head cell when you have a pointer to >> const List; I needed that so I could make foreach_const and >> forboth_const; they were needed to be able to make >> list_member, _equalList and various other list-visiting >> functions work with const List objects. >> >> So that's already duplicating list_head, foreach, and forboth. > > OK, I failed to pick up on that properly. With that stripped out, > you get the attached patch, which does nothing but add "const" to > 661 lines. It still applies cleanly, builds with no warnings, and > passes regression tests.
So what happens when someone wants to use list_nth in one of the outfuncs? Would we then rip all these back out? Or would we then bite the bullet and duplicate the code? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
