in reply to Why is sv_mortalcopy() non-const?
Also, since const-ness tends to propagate downward, you have to be careful adding it in after the fact, otherwise compilers will spew scads of warnings about passing in a const pointer to a routine that expects a normal one. Fixing the warnings generally requires source changes to extensions, and it's a little late to be doing that.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re: Re: Why is sv_mortalcopy() non-const?
by rsteinke (Scribe) on Jun 04, 2002 at 17:23 UTC | |
by Elian (Parson) on Jun 04, 2002 at 17:41 UTC |