Martin v. L=F6wis wrote: > "Delaney, Timothy" <tdelaney@avaya.com> writes: >=20 >>I must admit I caused this recent constifying mess ... someone complain= ed on >>python-list and I told him to submit a bug report (in the hope that it = would >>get rejected because I knew the problems it would cause). >=20 >=20 > I (obviously) did not feel that the request was misguided. The second > on (on RunString) was probably more effort that it will ever do good, > but I am convinced that the change is conceptually right, i.e. the > strings used as file names and scripts really should be const, as > people will pass string literals. > > OTOH, there are more places left that should accept const strings, but > don't, and I was certainly not out to fix them all. Instead, doing it > on user request only seems right to me. In the long run, we get happy > users because of such changes, which should be weighed against the few > unhappy developers that now have to silence compiler warnings :-) I would accept that point if you could demonstrate a single case where the const nature of the filename actually does any good for the *user*. BTW, how can I silence warnings when writing C code that's supposed to compiler with Python 2.1 and 2.3 ? (passing const char * to a char * API doesn't work for obvious reasons) --=20 Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH _______________________________________________________________________ eGenix.com -- Makers of the Python mx Extensions: mxDateTime,mxODBC,... Python Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4