Hi Gabriel, On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 05:24:36PM GMT, Gabriel Ravier wrote: > On 11/14/24 3:38 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Hi! > > > > lfind(3) does not modify its third argument, *nmemb. > > > > It's already suspicious that it takes a pointer, but I guess it's due to > > historic reasons, and that's already set in stone. > > > > However, I don't see why we should not make it 'const'. The function > > doesn't use it as an output pointer. Should I sent a patch for > > constifying it? > > > I believe the reason is that it aims to mirror lsearch, and to be able to be > used with it interchangeably as a function with the same type - doesn't > `const` make the pointer types distinct and incompatible ? Hmmm. That makes sense. Thanks! Alex > > I'd imagine it's not even used much at all elsewhere given how simple it is > and how cumbersome it is to use compared to an directly inlined > implementation. That is, I think making it non-const might just happen to > break a majority of uses of it. > > The only way to plausibly rectify this, I think, would be to make the > compatibility implicit in the standard for any similar function (in the same > way one might like to make it standard to e.g. pass a pointer to a pointer > to const char to strtol). -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
