libX11: fixing public headers?

[Thomas Dickey]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:49:19AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
> Keith Packard wrote:
> >On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 11:50 +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
> >
> >>What does everyone think about adding "const" there?
> >
> >C programs may end up generating extra warnings, but C++ programs may
> >start to fail to compile.
> >
> >>Can/should we do that?
> >
> >I guess the question is what bugs we expect to uncover by eliciting
> >additional compiler warnings and errors. If we expect these are being
> >mis-used, it would be a good thing. However, if we just end up breaking
> >a lot of otherwise correct code, it doesn't seem like a good plan.
> 
> I think adding const qualifiers to function parameters is generally 
> safe.  But adding a const qualifier to a returned pointer might cause 
> problems, as Keith alluded to.

Adding a const in a struct can also cause problems.
(Modifying a return-type more often than not causes problems).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20070402/bc4a19b8/attachment.pgp>