On Tue, Sep 21 2021, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 05:17:57PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Sep 21 2021, Jeff King wrote: >> >> > 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.[...] >> >> Are there cases in my conversion where the caller has to do anything >> special that they didn't before? These are also all static functions, so >> it's all internal details exported to nobody. > > No, they don't have to do anything differently. I just meant that it > clutters the interface when a human is reading it. Fair enough, to this human reading it (and I'm not new to the grep.c code) I find myself trying and failing to mentally track what gets modified where, but anyway, I think that point is understood and I won't argue for it ad nauseum. Just replied to say to Junio's <xmqqh7ec77s3.fsf@gitster.g> in the side-thread: > Yes. "This pointer is not modified" is a good thing to have inside > an implementation, but the callers should not have to care. That I just don't understand, i.e. how the variable is defined in this 6/5 pertains to how it gets used /inside/ the function in this case, the caller code doesn't have to care, but perhaps I'm missing something...
