Re: const correctness
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>, "Peter Geoghegan" <peter@2ndquadrant.com>, "Thomas Munro" <munro@ip9.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-11-10T20:10:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: > Tom mentioned the strchr() function, which does do that. I don't > actually find that surprising given my understanding of the > semantics. That means that the function is promising not to modify > the character array, but is not asserting that it knows the > character array to be immutable. Makes sense to me. It's up to the > caller to assign it to a "const char *" if it knows it passed in an > immutable object. The problem with it of course is that mistaken use could have the effect of casting-away-const, which is exactly what we hoped to prevent. Still, there may not be a better solution. regards, tom lane