Re: const correctness

Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 9 November 2011 15:24, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:.
>> If you go down this road you soon start needing duplicate functions
>> for no other reason than that one takes/returns "const" and one doesn't.

> Why would you have to do that?

list_nth is an example. Now admittedly you can hack it, in the same
spirit as the C library functions that are declared to take const
pointers and return non-const pointers to the very same data; but that
hardly satisfies anyone's idea of const cleanliness. In particular
it doesn't fix what Peter E. was on about, which was getting rid of
cast-away-const warnings, since such a function will have to do that
internally.

regards, tom lane