| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Stanaway <david(at)stanaway(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared |
| Date: | 2004-06-10 05:34:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20133.1086845652@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
David Stanaway <david(at)stanaway(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:21, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
>> Not that it would be a problem here, because the array itself is const
>> and so the function could never write its own pointer into it. I
>> think it's one of those rare situations where a cast is justified.
> If the prototype had been for const char** I would not have needed to
> change anything, the API author I guess is being thorough.
The author was me, and I didn't think I was creating any problems by
const-ifying the declaration :-(. Jerome, are you sure this isn't
a compiler glitch? I really have a problem with the notion that a
library routine can over-constify its input declarations...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Stanaway | 2004-06-10 06:37:52 | Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared |
| Previous Message | David Stanaway | 2004-06-09 22:38:14 | Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared |