On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:42:35AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I do have a slight preference for going the _other_ way. There is no > > need to mark the parameter as const in the definition. It is passed by > > value, so nobody except the function body cares either way. And we have > > many function bodies where value-passed parameters (or local variables!) > > are not marked as const, even though they are only assigned to once. > > That would be more like this patch, then? > > -- >8 -- > Subject: pkt-line: drop 'const'-ness of a param to set_packet_header() > [..] Yes, exactly. -Peff
