Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id JAA07260;
 Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:09:17 -0800
Received: from ooo.lanl.gov by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id
 JAA07251; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:09:13 -0800
Received: by ooo.lanl.gov
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA141781328; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:08:48 -0700
From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
Message-Id: <199602131708.AA141781328@ooo.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: 82 replacement?
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 10:08:47 MST
In-Reply-To: <m0tmOAS-0000kJC@mamba.ast.cam.ac.uk>;
 from "David Robinson" at Feb 13, 96 5:05 pm
X-Organization: Theoretical Division, T-8. Los Alamos National Laboratory
X-Snail: LANL Theoretical Divi' T-8, MS B285, P.O Box 1663,
 Los Alamos NM 87545
X-Marks-The-Spot: Doh !
X-Url: http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/
X-Cessive-Use-Of-Headers: check
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

 
> >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.