Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Perhaps there should be a few more 'XXX_const' accessor function
>> variants, for example list_nth_const,
>
> This is exactly what was bothering Robert and me about Peter's
> patch.If you go down this road you soon start needing duplicate
> functions for no other reason than that one takes/returns "const"
> and one doesn't.
What about existing functions which are not intended to modify their
inputs, don't actually do so, and can be marked to indicate that
just by adding "const" to the current declarations? Aside from any
possible value in code optimization by the compiler, I find it helps
me understand unfamiliar code more quickly, by making the contract
of the API more explicit in the declaration. Perhaps it's worth
going after the low-hanging fruit?
-Kevin