Re: const correctness

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> If it doesn't uglify the code, there aren't any negatives.  I'm
>> just saying we may not be able to get very far before we run up
>> against that issue.  For example, in the OP, Thomas wrote:
>>
>> 7.  I made a list_head_const function, which can be used used to
>>     get a pointer to the head cell when you have a pointer to
>>     const List; I needed that so I could make foreach_const and
>>     forboth_const; they were needed to be able to make
>>     list_member, _equalList and various other list-visiting
>>     functions work with const List objects.
>>
>> So that's already duplicating list_head, foreach, and forboth.
>
> OK, I failed to pick up on that properly.  With that stripped out,
> you get the attached patch, which does nothing but add "const" to
> 661 lines.  It still applies cleanly, builds with no warnings, and
> passes regression tests.

So what happens when someone wants to use list_nth in one of the
outfuncs? Would we then rip all these back out? Or would we then
bite the bullet and duplicate the code?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company