Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 51529 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2000 12:21:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 51512 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2000 12:21:25 -0000 Message-ID: <39C8AD6F.CF7572CF@level8.com> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:28:32 -0400 From: Gregory Nicholls X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: apr_send using const char instead of void ?? References: <39C762D5.57A92810@level8.com> <20000919211404.A2365@hand.dotat.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N By length calculations are you referring to sizeof() ?? G. Tony Finch wrote: > Jeff Trawick wrote: > >Gregory Nicholls writes: > > > >> Question: The prototype for function apr_send uses a const char * as it's > >> buffer parm type. Is there a reason that this isn't a void * ??? I mean I know I > >> can cast it but I'm wondering if there's something I don't understand. > > > >"const void *" sounds better to me, too. > > A reason in favour of char* is that length calculations on void > pointers are forbidden. If the latter were not true I'd be in favour > of void* too, but then void* would effectively be no different from > char*. > > Tony. > -- > en oeccget g mtcaa f.a.n.finch > v spdlkishrhtewe y dot@dotat.at > eatp o v eiti i d. fanf@covalent.net