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.
In reply to Re: Why is sv_mortalcopy() non-const?
by Elian
in thread Why is sv_mortalcopy() non-const?
by rsteinke
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |