Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I see that you added the `const` keyword. While it does not hurt, I would >> probably not have bothered... > > That's fair, I went with what seemed most common in the codebase. > More than half the parameters seem to be using "const struct > pathspec", so that seems to be the more common way if we don't require > the parameter to be modifyable. Yes, when you prepare a struct at a callsite and pass it thru a long callchain, it is very helpful to both humans and compilers reading the code to declare that the structure would not be modified, if the code indeed keeps it constant. A caller that used to passed the structure by value certainly hasn't been expecting the callee would modify its contents and it needs to read back the updated value, so I find that most of these constifing, if not all, very much in line with the original's spirit.
