🚀 go-pugleaf

John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Or indeed, as :
>
>const char __foo[] = {'H','e','l','l','o',' ','w','o','r','l','d','\0'};
>char *foo;
>const char *bar;
>foo = (char *) __foo;
>bar = (const char *) __foo;

Indeed.  That's the effect of the const.

Actually, considering that string literals semantically have the type
char *, even though they behave like const char *, it would be more
accurate to write the above as

const char __foo[] = {'H','e','l','l','o',' ','w','o','r','l','d','\0'};
char *foo;
const char *bar;
foo = (char *) __foo;
bar = (char *) __foo;

-zefram