Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!littlei!intelhf!watson!ajw
From: ajw@watson.hf.intel.com (Alan Waldock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: const vs. void
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.164518.19928@intelhf.hf.intel.com>
Date: 20 Mar 91 16:45:18 GMT
Sender: news@intelhf.hf.intel.com (News User)
Reply-To: ajw@watson.hf.intel.com
Organization: Intel Development Tools Operation, Hillsboro, OR
Lines: 15
Originator: ajw@watson
Nntp-Posting-Host: watson

This is a kind of repost, on account of our mail servers are up
the creek.

If, to protect data, I point to it with a 'char const *', the
compiler prevents me from using that pointer as the first (destination)
argument to 'strncpy()', which requires a 'char *'.

However, I'm free to pass it (as destination) to 'memcpy()', which
specifies a 'void *' as its first argument.

It's as if a 'void *' will accept any pointer, const or no.
Is this right?

-- Alan Waldock, from but not on behalf of Intel Corporation
   ajw@watson.hf.intel.com       ...uunet!intelhf!watson!ajw