Re: const correctness

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: const correctness
Date: 2011-11-09 15:33:28
Message-ID: CAEYLb_WRr1pqqGJ8=cUFLxbHLCk6OM296mqKRop362LT0zmmJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9 November 2011 15:24, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:.
> If you go down this road you soon start needing duplicate functions
> for no other reason than that one takes/returns "const" and one doesn't.

Why would you have to do that?

To my mind, the fact that const "spreads" is a feature, not a deficiency.

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-11-09 15:45:30 Re: const correctness
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-11-09 15:33:10 Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address()