Re: const correctness

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org> wrote:
>> There is another option: if list_head is changed to take a pointer
>> to const List and return a pointer to non-const ListCell
>> (something I was trying to avoid before), then no XXX_const
>> functions/macros are necessary, and all of the functions from the
>> first patch can keep their 'const', adding const to 930 lines.

> Now that you mention it, I think that's better anyway.

IOW, the strchr() trick? If the C standards committee couldn't find
any better answer than that, maybe we shouldn't expect to either.

In general I don't have an objection to adding "const" to individual
routines, so long as it doesn't create propagating requirements to
const-ify other code. This may be the only way to do it.

regards, tom lane