Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Yes, but if you're feeding const strings into something that strips the > const to avoid a warning, then you're ignoring the warning at your own > peril. You'd do better to make your code correctly const-safe. If you > have legitimate instances where the result both needs to be non-const, > and really /is/ non-const, then you might want to consider making a > second version, so you have two versions, one all-const, and one > all-non-const. Ahh yes... I hadn't considered that. Using the inline function as we have it today would allow someone to make a mistake and end up passing a const string into a non-const usage. This will take some more thought, since the macro version didn't do what we wanted and we can't overload since this is C and not C++ :-) -- Kevin P. Fleming Director of Software Technologies Digium, Inc. - "The Genuine Asterisk Experience" (TM)
