> Stop using non-const references in function signatures Carrying the discussion over from [1], I would like to hear a clear decision that this is the way LilyPond is going to be coded--something more definite than one person proposing a change and another saying it looks good. If this is the way things are going to be, contributors and reviewers would also benefit from guidance on when a function should validate the pointers it receives, and if it doesn't, how that ought to be documented to make up for not being allowed to pass by reference.
[1] https://codereview.appspot.com/577410045/ https://codereview.appspot.com/577440044/
