Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!jseidman
From: jseidman@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (James Seidman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: const and struct pointers
Message-ID: <4654@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: 25 Feb 90 19:34:00 GMT
References: <1214@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <90054.232325CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> <414@charyb.COM>
Distribution: all
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Lines: 21

In article <414@charyb.COM> will@charyb.UUCP (Will Crowder) writes:
>Actually, I'm somewhat surprised that Turbo C didn't just throw out the
>"const" in:
>
>	void asdf(const struct qwert a);
>
>I wouldn't think "const" would mean much for a non-pointer parameter passed 
>by value.

I would think that "const" in this context would mean pretty much the same
thing as it would in a normal variable declaration.  That is, that the
function asdf() won't change the parameter a locally.  Granted, about the
only use for this is to generate warnings if you accidentally do assign a
new value to a (like in "if (a = 2) then...") and to improve readibility of
code.  Of course, this doesn't explain why the compiler complained, but it
should not just throw away the "const" qualifier.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Seidman, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711.  (714) 621-8000 x2026
DISCLAIMER: I don't even know if these are opinions, let alone those of
            anyone other than me.