On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 06:25 +0200, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 12:04 +0100, Marcel M?ller wrote: > > Is there a serious reason why pa_proplist_copy takes a non constant > > pointer to the property list to copy? > > I don't think there is, other than the hassle to implement a variant of > pa_hashmap_iterate() (called by pa_proplist_update(), which is called by > pa_proplist_copy()) that takes a const pa_hashmap pointer and returns > const pointers. That could be avoided by doing some ugly casts in > pa_proplist_update(). I'm not sure which is worse - duplicating > pa_hashmap_iterate() or the ugly casts. In any case, if the > non-constness of the pa_proplist_copy() argument is a problem for > someone, I think we should fix pa_proplist_copy() in one way or another. As I understand it, const-ness is only a compiler hint so there isn't ABI breakage here. Since the qualifier only really applies in the function's scope, no API breakage either. So unless someone with more C-fu skillz than I have points out otherwise, I'm okay with fixing this up. -- Arun
