David Stanaway <david@stanaway.net> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:21, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
>> Not that it would be a problem here, because the array itself is const
>> and so the function could never write its own pointer into it. I
>> think it's one of those rare situations where a cast is justified.
> If the prototype had been for const char** I would not have needed to
> change anything, the API author I guess is being thorough.
The author was me, and I didn't think I was creating any problems by
const-ifying the declaration :-(. Jerome, are you sure this isn't
a compiler glitch? I really have a problem with the notion that a
library routine can over-constify its input declarations...
regards, tom lane