Scalar or aggregate object? Huh? I'm not touching this one. This post isn't addressed to me anyway it might be best just to abandon this thread.
Thios is a Usenet discussion group. Posts are not addressed to individuals at all.
If you are willing to abandon the thread without ever demonstrating that you have understood the answers to your original question, in fact just the opposite, one has to wonder why you bothered to ask in the first place.
I doubt that I could ever demonstrate to clc that I have the answers to the question even if I did. clc isn't exactly a learning group. Not enough patience. This is getting too technical. Doomed to failure. Thanks anyway.
Ben Bacarisse said:pete said:I think that the way that the const keyword
is used in the return statement,
shows some confusion on the part of the author.
It causes the result of the dereference
in the strcmp function call, to be const qualified,
which is neither required nor consistent
with the parameters of strcmp
being pointers to const qualified types.
I am not so sure. The const that is there is a Good Const. Omitting it
might cause a warning (gcc will oblige) about "casting away" const. The
question as to whether there should be another:
*(const char *const *)p1
is not clear cut to me. The cast, as written, is a correct reflection
of the object being sorted, and there is some documentary merit in doing
that -- cast only to the type of the thing being sorted. [snip]
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.