From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 16 16:47:02 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF3C106566B for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:47:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthias.andree@gmx.de) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4F678FC16 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2011 16:46:59 -0000 Received: from g225208061.adsl.alicedsl.de (EHLO [192.168.0.4]) [92.225.208.61] by mail.gmx.net (mp011) with SMTP; 16 Feb 2011 17:46:59 +0100 X-Authenticated: #428038 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+ry3QlfgOrK4C8J3fw483Zj9u4bwnHLbr037jhvG U/EDRNJ4/oXRaT Message-ID: <4D5BFF82.3040705@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:46:58 +0100 From: Matthias Andree User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <201102150319.p1F3JAo4090377@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: <201102150319.p1F3JAo4090377@fire.js.berklix.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: Re: man 3 getopt char * const argv[] - is const wrong ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:47:02 -0000 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