Re: Why does potato compiling suck?
On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ben Hendrickson wrote:
>
> > Const issues didn't use to be fatal error. Message says it isn't a fatal
> > error. Now in potato it is a fatal error. Smells fishy. Anyone?
>
> [...] Yo're supposed to say
> const_cast<char *>(s)
I doubt this works. Costness is gotten rid of by const_cast. Our
variable is suffering from a lack of constness, not an excess of it. But
this is besides the point.
> Isn't this for ANSI compliance? [...]
No, this isn't. Generating a non-fatal warning at bad code is acceptable
behavior for a ANSI-compliant compiler.
This (and the behavior change that started this thread) is a problem only
because code that used to compile now will not. Any package in potato
with upstream source that a couple months ago generated a const warning no
longer compiles. I suppose we could just hope there are not many packages
like this in potato, or that they will be stumbled across before we ship.
Heck, maybe my package was the only one.
-Ben
Reply to: