> From: Greg Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 6:35 PM > > >> - char *const *argv; > >> + char **argv; > > > Um. I don't think we can do this with argv. I'm surprised that it > > isn't "const char * const * argv". > > We can do whatever we want with argv. That's pretty well-established.
Yes. But you are making a critical flaw in your thinking :-) You assume we are dealing with argc/argv ... after that simmered for a second, realize other apr_getopt users will be processing other arrays of arrays, not only the main() args. > It wasn't "const char *const *argv" before because a "char **" > argument is not compatible with such a parameter, and C programs > canonically take "char **argv", not "const char *const *argv". I'm > not sure if it's even valid C to silently change from char * to const > char * without an explicit cast, which is what you'd be doing if you > wrote a main() which accepted a list of const char pointers intead of > a list of char pointers. Don't be silly, you can always pass a non-const value for a const arg. Same with silent promotions of int to long, etc.
