On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Alberto Mardegan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If I proposed a patch which adds some "const" here and there, would that be
>> discarded a priori, or would it undergo a serious consideration?
>>
>
> I'm not a GTK maintainer, but one problem with this is backward
> compatibility. Adding const can certainly break previously-working
> code, especially C++ code.
>
Sorry for long delay, but could you please explain, how changing from
g_hash_table_size (GHashTable *hash_table);
to
g_hash_table_size (const GHashTable *hash_table);
would to break any C++ code? It would to make some bunch of
const_cast<> unneeded and noop -- yes. But break... hard to imagine.
Plase, pay attention that I say about (1) functions that don't modify
object's state, and (2) receive "just pointer", not ther
pointer-to-pointer.
--
Andrew W. Nosenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
