Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!jrdzzz.jrd.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit533!diamond
From: diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: const char*
Message-ID: <1991May13.004427.26527@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 13 May 91 00:44:27 GMT
References: <4278@rwthinf.UUCP> <16061@smoke.brl.mil> <1742@targon.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System)
Reply-To: diamond@jit533.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 13

In article <1742@targon.UUCP> andre@targon.UUCP (Andre van Dalen) writes:

>Does this mean that you can transform a const char * by calling a function?
>char * un_const (const char *p) { return (char *)p; }
>const char *read_only;
>char *foo = un_const(read_only);

Sure, but why bother coding a function?  You can just say:
 char *foo = (char *) read_only;
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.