Re: [HACKERS] Adding some const keywords to external interfaces

> 
> > > Thus spake Bruce Momjian
> > > > These are good points.  Can you post the patch again?  I deleted it. 
> > > 
> > > I bounced it directly to you rather than reposting to the list.
> > > 
> > > > Sounds like it would be safe.  I am interested in const-ify-ing the
> > > > backend code, if possible.  It does offer a level of code checking that
> > > > we don't currently have.
> > > 
> > > Me too but as I said, this patch doesn't do that.  It only const-ifies
> > > the the arguments to an external interface.
> > > 
> > > > The only issue is that is has to be done pretty exhaustively.  If you
> > > > don't, your new const function parameters start passing params to
> > > > functions that takes non-const params, and warnings start to fly.
> > > 
> > > I compiled the entire tree without any warnings so I assume that the
> > > changes wound up being pretty localized.

> Thus spake Bruce Momjian
> > We agreed to skip this right now, right?
> 
> I still think it's benign at worst.  Shall I keepthe changes and resubmit
> later?
> 

Didn't we agree we have to do all the const stuff at once?  And people
addressing those internal fields would now find them to be const?  I
really don't remember.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026