Subject: Re: putenv question
From: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <10110020339.AA16416@clio.rice.edu>
References: <10110020339 DOT AA16416 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.13.99+cvs.2001.09.11.22.18 (Preview Release)
Date: 02 Oct 2001 09:04:18 +0200
Message-Id: <1002006261.19672.6.camel@bender.falconsoft.be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2001-10-02 at 05:39, Charles Sandmann wrote:
> I don't have a posix standard, so a simple question ...
> 
> putenv in 2.03 took a const char * argument
> 
> When it was moved to the posix section in cvs it is no longer const
> When I passed the const strings "lfn=" in mntent I had to unconst
> the strings to avoid warnings.  Is it against the standard or some
> other way bad for this to be const in the headers?  Just wondering.

Since the POSIX draft standard listed putenv's argument as a non-const
char*, I changed our implementation to match (and added a note about
this to wc204.txi).
I don't really see why it can't be const, but I felt it would be best to
follow the standard.