On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 12:46 +0100, Ian Abbott wrote: > On 19/05/2005 11:18, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 10:47 +0100, Ian Abbott wrote: > > > >>On 18/05/2005 19:29, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote: > >>>It is not. The point was that the interface allow the user to specify a > >>>callback for freeing the data, and thus the pointer to theses data > >>>should not be marked as const. > >> > >>In that case, I agree with Jim that the current prototype declaration is > >>correct. The function does not modify the data through the pointer, > >>hence the thing it is pointing to should be declared const within the > >>function. > > > > This is a matter of opinion. Some people will think that the function > > should not use const at all since the interface allow the user to > > specify a callback for freeing the data. Other will not. There is no > > "correct" answer. > > Please re-read Jim's argument about inserting a "const char *" value in > an earlier sub-thread. At the moment the interface is general enough to > be used with both const and non-const data without the user of the > interface having to cast away any const qualifiers.
Yes, I disagree with this argument :-) -- Yoann Vandoorselaere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
