On 12/14/2010 10:01 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Unfortunately, this was a surprise to me, since I was expecting it to > behave as const char * does when passed char * pointers, as apparently > did everyone on xorg-devel when the patch went by.
Another myth debunked: "applying const gets you benefits". Thank you, at least I feel less stupid now! But wouldn't all that mean the correct decl would be "const char* const *"? Then no-one would have to assume a temporary might get modified. (I didn't read into it too deep, however) Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
