Re: [AD] constness in ugetx()

[Laurence Withers <lwithers@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In reply to George Foot (George Foot <gfoot@xxxxxxxxxx>):
>Oops, I've just found out what you meant, and I don't understand
>why it's causing a problem. :(  I might have to give in to Shawn
>and agree that `const' is broken!

Something seems to be broken somewhere. Perhaps it is my understanding
of `const'; I do not seem to be able to get the compiler to understand
what I mean. Taking your example below,

>    void func (char *a, char **b)
>    {
>        const char *x = a;
>        const char **y = b;
>    }

If I rewrite this as:

    typedef char** char2ptr;

    void func(char* a, char** b)
    {
        const char* p = a;
        const char2ptr q = b;
    }

I get no error. I do not have time to test it, but what if we rewrite
ugetx() to be:

typdef char** allegro_const_pointer_hack;
int ugetx(const allegro_const_pointer_hack p);

Now what happens?

Bye for now,
-- 
Laurence Withers, lwithers@xxxxxxxxxx
                http://www.lwithers.demon.co.uk/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature