Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > In general I don't have an objection to adding "const" to > individual routines, so long as it doesn't create propagating > requirements to const-ify other code. This may be the only way to > do it. As I understand it (although I'm no C expert), a "const" qualifier on a function parameter declaration is a promise that the function will not modify what is thus qualified. That means that it can't pass a const parameter to another function as a parameter not also declared const. It doesn't say anything about the object itself or what is returned from the function. So a non-const parameter in can be passed to a const parameter in a call, but not vice versa. And a variable need not be declared const to pass it to a function as a const parameter. I don't know if this meets your conditions for non-propagation. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
