In article <3grcvf$epv@news.uni-c.dk>, mojemj@unidhp.uni-c.dk (Mogens Jensen) writes:

[Stuff about Passing char ** as const char ** beeing illegal deleted]
|>
|> I agree that it is a strange restriction, why does it indicate a logic
|> error?, and what is the difference between [char*->const char*] and
|> [char**->const char**]?
|>
|> One could imagine that const meant anti-volatile, so that the compiler
|> was able to make certain presumptions (only load once); and a non-const
|> pointer could possibly violate this assumption - but this can't be the
|> case as [char*->const char*] is allowed (and we have the volatile
|> keyword) ...
|>

Consider this example, that is legal if the conversion [char**->const char**]
is legal:

void f( const char ** p)
{
    static const char *message= "Hello world!";
    *p = message;
}

main()
{
    char *p;
    f( &p );
    p[0] = 'F'; // Breaks constness of f::message
}

  Hope this helps.


--

   ====         Best regards
     \\                              Jarand Roeynstrand
      \\                           DIG-hackers department
     \====\
  .,;,\    \                     EFI
,;;;;;;;;,_/     ____          N-7034 Trondheim
           |    |              Norway
           |    |
            \__/

Phone:  +47-73 59 72 75           Email: jr@efi.sintef.no

>>>>> Timo Kettunen <timo.kettunen@pragma.pp.fi> writes:

> Sometimes it is desirable to have same method name for static and virtual
> function. With different parameter lists this succeeds, but parameterless
> methods are trickier.

> One way to circumvent this problem is using default parameter for the
> static one.

> Does this conform to standard?

No, the call a.f() is ambiguous.  Use different names.

Jason