On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If it doesn't uglify the code, there aren't any negatives. I'm
>> just saying we may not be able to get very far before we run up
>> against that issue. For example, in the OP, Thomas wrote:
>>
>> 7. I made a list_head_const function, which can be used used to
>> get a pointer to the head cell when you have a pointer to
>> const List; I needed that so I could make foreach_const and
>> forboth_const; they were needed to be able to make
>> list_member, _equalList and various other list-visiting
>> functions work with const List objects.
>>
>> So that's already duplicating list_head, foreach, and forboth.
>
> OK, I failed to pick up on that properly. With that stripped out,
> you get the attached patch, which does nothing but add "const" to
> 661 lines. It still applies cleanly, builds with no warnings, and
> passes regression tests.
So what happens when someone wants to use list_nth in one of the
outfuncs? Would we then rip all these back out? Or would we then
bite the bullet and duplicate the code?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company