Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!pyramid!voder!apple!mikes
From: mikes@apple.UUCP (Mike Shannon)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Function prototypes versus open()
Message-ID: <1261@apple.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Jul-87 20:23:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: apple.1261
Posted: Thu Jul  2 20:23:01 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 11:02:53 EDT
References: <18346@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <8042@utzoo.UUCP> <2210@hoptoad.uucp> <657@haddock.UUCP> <7046@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: mikes@apple.UUCP (Mike Shannon)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 18

In article <7046@alice.UUCP> shopiro@alice.UUCP writes:
>I'd just like to mention that in C++, the prototype for open() would be
>
>	int	open(const char* path, int flags, int mode=0);
			^
			|
	The above "const" brings up an interesting question:
	if I do:

{
char *pathname = "some.file";
int i;
	i = open(pathname, O_RDONLY) .....
}

	is the above declaration really OK? since the first param isn't CONST?
-- 
			Michael Shannon {apple!mikes}