Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>> +int vethCreate(char* veth1, int veth1MaxLen,
>> + char* veth2, int veth2MaxLen)
>> +{
>> + int rc = -1;
>> + const char *argv[] = {
>
> I think Jim insists on having const char const * [], but I bet he will explain
> this better than me :-)
>
>> + "ip", "link", "add", veth1, "type", "veth", "peer", "name", veth2,
>> NULL
You're right that I encourage the "const correct" approach ;-)
To tell the compiler (and more importantly, the reader) that you
have a const array of const strings, you'd declare it like this:
const char *const argv[] = {
or, equivalently, the const can go after the type name of "char":
char const *const argv[] = {
However, argv is one place where it pays to relax const-correctness
guidelines, at least in C, because so many interfaces require non-const
"char **argv" pointers. IMHO, it's better to avoid const altogether in
this limited case than to be forced to litter the code with ugly and
dangerous const-adjusting casts to accommodate "correctness".
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
