>
> > > 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