Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:45:16PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> I think that generally git's codebase could use going beyond just >> "const char *" when a "const char * const" would suffice, for some >> reason we seem to mostly use it for the static usage variables. > > I didn't dig up the references in the list archive, but I feel like > we've had this discussion long ago. One of the reasons not to do so is > that it pollutes the function's interface with internal details. The > caller does not care whether the function is going to modify the pointer > itself, because it is passed by value. You could apply the same logic > that we should be passing "const int", and so on. Yes. "This pointer is not modified" is a good thing to have inside an implementation, but the callers should not have to care. Thanks.
