httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Hartill <>
Subject Re: 82 replacement?
Date Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:08:47 GMT
> >If const is correct for most (non-NeXT) then shouldn't that be used?
> What's 'correct'?
> Omitting the 'const' is legal and valid for all systems.
> Inserting the const does not provide any enhancement in terms of code
> reliability. It would only make any difference to someone who was reading
> the code and didn't know what setsockopt() did.

Fairy nuff. Wasn't me who added the "consts" to begin with so I thought
they must be there for a good reason.

View raw message