Re: const correctness - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: const correctness
Date
Msg-id CAEYLb_WRr1pqqGJ8=cUFLxbHLCk6OM296mqKRop362LT0zmmJQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: const correctness  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: const correctness
List pgsql-hackers
On 9 November 2011 15:24, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi)
Date:
Subject: Re: ProcArrayLock contention
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: new warning