Re: [gnome-db] Patch for const removal

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 20:18, Paisa Seeluangsawat wrote:
> > I don't understand why the const should be removed from all of the
> > gda_value_*.
> 
> Vivian, I don't understand why either :-P.  I completely agree with
> your view.  You should have jumped out and helped me earlier when
> Rodrigo mandated that...
> 
> > those functions [gda_value_*] are wrong. As I said, all GNOME libs
> > never use constas the object argument (object_whatever (Object
> > *object...), so we shouldn't do the same.
> 
> For more of these arguments leading to this patch see this thread,
> 
>   http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-db-list/2003-October/msg00113.html
> 
> 
> And to Rodrigo...
> >
> > > - -const GList *
> > > +GList *
> > >  gda_connection_get_errors (GdaConnection *cnc)
> > >  {
> > >  	g_return_val_if_fail (GDA_IS_CONNECTION (cnc), NULL);
> > >
> > this function should maintain the const, since what is returned is a
> > private copy.
> >
> I was just carrying out your idea here.  Isn't GList one of your
> "object_whatever"?  Didn't you say *all* GNOME libs never use const
> objects?

I never said such a thing. I said let's do it the GNOME way, which is to
use const in only a few places where it's obvious. Obviously, our
gda_value/gda_row stuff was suffering from the const problem, and this
is why we even started talking about it. If it had been the perfect way,
it would have remained as it was, but since it wasn't, we are changing
it to match the rest of the APIs we use.

It's not about "let's do it like the cool guys", but "let's fix it", and
I think we all agree the const's in those files are wrong, even if it's
the correct fix semantically speaking.

cheers