🚀 go-pugleaf

Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[ ... ] 
>realloc can be thought of as destroying an object (without modifying it)
>and then creating another one initialised to (an appropriate amount of)
>the data that was in the first one. 

It can be thought of that way, and if officially described that way, I
think realloc taking a const would be reasonable.  However, with the
present description, there is the definite concept of realloc (possibly)
modifying the original object, which doesn't fit with const at all.
    Later,
    Jerry.

/* I can barely express my own opinions; I certainly can't
 * express anybody else's.
 *
 * The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
 */