On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 16:33 +0000, Philip Martin wrote: > Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:35, Hyrum K Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:03 AM, <phi...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> Author: philip > >>> Date: Thu Mar 3 15:03:42 2011 > >>> New Revision: 1076645 > >>> > >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1076645&view=rev > >>> Log: > >>> Wrap pointer in a baton to avoid a complier warning or cast. > >> > >> I think a single cast is better than the obfuscation of wrapping a > >> single value in a baton. Please reconsider this change. > > > > Agreed. I'd much rather see (void *)changelist, than all of this stuff. > > A cast that changes the type, (void *)changelist, or one that just > removes the qualifier, (char *)changelist? Casts lead to questions.
Sure a single arg in a struct is a bit ugly. But I don't like casting away "const" when we don't need to, as it can be a very useful warning if we don't have too many false alarms. Either way is ugly. C language has these holes in it - in this case, passing a pointer that may or may not be "const" just isn't well supported - so we have to do something ugly to work around it. There's no clear winner here. It's hardly obfuscation to pass a structure as a baton: that is the *normal* pattern for passing args to such a function. Passing a casted pointer to a singleton argument is the special case. - Julian
