Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:46:58 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: man 3 getopt char * const argv[] - is const wrong ? Message-ID: <4D5BFF82.3040705@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <201102150319.p1F3JAo4090377@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <201102150319.p1F3JAo4090377@fire.js.berklix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 15.02.2011 04:19, schrieb Julian H. Stacey: >> and the SUS is available free of charge, that's > > Again you fail to post a precise complete URL for free open anonymous > reference. One might wonder your involvment with open.org/ISO/IEEE. I don't care to do the searching for you, nor discuss any of this, in particular because you are distracting from your actual getopt(3) concern with random sidesteps. And that's already one more reason that I've given than you've deserved. Let's stick to the technical discussion. >> language, 2nd edition, then getopt() isn't even in my printed book's index. > > Yet again: The point is to find the latest specification > of C language "const" Before considering latest getopt(). No it isn't, that is another of your distractions. The explanations about const are all there and you haven't yet clarified your concern about const-ness of the argv pointers in said getopt argument. I don't care about policies, standardization, affiliations, unless you document the technical concern that you see in the const in getopt()'s "char * const argv[]" argument. And before that happens I'm not even interested in a pseudo-technical discussion. Try comp.lang.c for a change. -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D5BFF82.3040705>