On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:00:03AM -0700, Rush Manbert wrote:
> massimo morara wrote:
> > In the function xmlCopyNode(const xmlNodePtr node, int
> >extended) [tree.c], what is supposed be 'const'?
> >
> Write the declaration out, then read it backwards to determine what is
> const. In this case, I believe the declaration would be "const xmlNode
> *", so reading it backward says that it's a pointer to a xmlNode that is
> const. A const pointer would be "xmlNodePtr const node"
Sorry, but i'm pretty sure that "const xmlNodePtr node" is (in
"tree.h") "xmlNode * const node", so is the pointer that is costant;
next i transcribe a little trivial program to verify a similar case.
My question is: what we wish costant: the pointer or the data?
If we wish that is costant the structure pointed, we should
write "xmlNode const * node" or, defining in "tree.h" something like
typedef xmlNode const * xmlConstNodePtr;
write "xmlConstNodePtr node".
For xmlCopyNode() and for other functions.
massimo morara
ps: sorry for my bad english
---- test program ----
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct
{
int foo;
} fooStruct ;
typedef fooStruct * fooStrPtr;
void changeFooData (const fooStrPtr pfd)
{
pfd->foo = 2;
/* pfd++; forbidden */
}
int main (void)
{
fooStruct fooData;
fooData.foo = 1;
changeFooData(&fooData);
printf("foo val: %i\n", fooData.foo);
return(0);
}
_______________________________________________
xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
