On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 15:59, D. Hugh Redelmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > > | From: Andrew Cagney <[email protected]>
> If one declares all possible struct fd * things const, the absence of > const highlights where references could go wrong. Why? > "const" generally helps a reader and a compiler understand a program > better. It says don't write to these non-opaque contents. > It is good that struct fd is an opaque type. > > One can imagine a change to fd_read which would involve modifying the > struct fd. At such time, the const could be removed. Are you > seriously contemplating a change that requires this? I go where the code takes me. _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
