Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 10:54:42 -0800 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: man 3 getopt char * const argv[] - is const wrong ? Message-ID: <20110213185443.4A0FC5B44@mail.bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:20:58 %2B0100." <201102131221.p1DCKxRY077335@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <201102131221.p1DCKxRY077335@fire.js.berklix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:20:58 +0100 "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> wrote: > Hi Hackers > Ref.: man 3 getopt > int getopt(int argc, char * const argv[], const char *optstring); > > Ref.: K&R 2nd Ed P.211 last indent, 2nd sentence > The purpose of const is to announce objjects that may be > placed in read-only memory, and perhaps to increas opportunities > for optimization > > optstring is obviously const, > but I don't see that argv can calim to be const ? > > Did some ISO standard redefine const ? If so URL please ? > (I learnt my C from K&R #1 decades ago :-) Not quite what you asked for but this may help in making sense of const.... $ cdecl # from /usr/ports/devel/cdecl explain const char* x declare x as pointer to const char explain char * const x declare x as const pointer to char
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110213185443.4A0FC5B44>