🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4emonm$kqc@fnclub.fnal.gov> b91926@fnclub.fnal.gov (David Sachs) writes:
> I think it is rather unfortunate, that "const" came in so late.
> 
> Logically the proper tye of a string literal should be const char*
> rather than char*, but there is just too much code written with
> the old usage, for such a change to ever be feasible.

Well, maybe.  Consts that the programmer did not ask for can be a pain,
because the const qualifier cannot be propagated from a function
argument to the return value (or another function argument).  So we get
into the habit of casting away consts, and will sometimes do it
incorrectly.

To fix this, C would need something with this semantics (using semi-C++
syntax):

    const <C>             /* Declare "C" as a "maybe-const" qualifier */
    C char *              /* Use C */
    strchr (<C> char*);	  /* Set C from the function argument */

    const <C> long strtol (<C> char *str, C char **ptr, int base);

    /* Return the largest of two strings */
    const <C1, C2> C1 C2 char *str_max (<C1> char *str1, <C2> char *str2);

I'm not sure whether to call that an argument for or against fixing the
matter...
-- 
Regards,

Hallvard