Re: [gtk-list] Patch for gtk-1.0.1
- From: Raja R Harinath <harinath cs umn edu>
- To: <jamesa demon net>
- Cc: gtk-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: [gtk-list] Patch for gtk-1.0.1
- Date: 12 May 1998 16:53:26 -0500
James A <email@example.com> writes:
> There is a problem with gcc 126.96.36.199 and the patch with doing things
> like... (which should be valid)
> gint g_snprintf (gchar *str, gulong n, const gchar const *fmt, ...);
const gchar const *fmt
is the same as saying
const const gchar *fmt
I don't think `const const' is accepted. If you meant
const gchar *const fmt
the second `const' is meaningless in a formal parameter, and is taken to
be `const gchar *fmt' anyway.
> Which was originaly...
> gint g_snprintf (gchar *str, gulong n, gchar const *fmt, ...);
> I only found out about this after I had uploaded the patch. So just
> change them to...
> gint g_snprintf (gchar *str, gulong n, const gchar *fmt, ...);
Yep. `gchar const *fmt' and `const gchar *fmt' mean the same thing. It
is only a matter of style.
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ firstname.lastname@example.org
"When all else fails, read the instructions." -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing." -- Roy L Ash
] [Thread Prev