> Hi Quentin, Hey Cris,
> In general the existing code seems confused, no? A code isn't confused, the reader might be though. Is there something you are not actually understanding here? > Either we shouldn't pass them in as const in the first place, > or we should maintain the constness that we > declare in the function parameters. The constness is “maintained” here, the function gets a "const FcChar8 *" > There shouldn't be any logical change here, but it seems weird to say things > are not mutable up front and then waver about it later. Right now there's no > UB, but making sure we don't cast away the const mitigates the risk > altogether. There is no risk here. What could be problematic is the opposite, passing an immutable variable to a function expecting a mutable variable, but this isn't the case here. I think that the cast here is actually unnecessary, isn't it?
