4 Aug
2010
4 Aug
'10
10:46 a.m.
LucaDC wrote:
Jasper van de Gronde wrote:
Interesting. I just encountered the opposite, and thus added the const, as that also agrees with Microsoft's documentation. Also, I figured that even if this was different in older versions (I'm using TDM's GCC 4.5) it should be safe to hand it a function that takes a const parameter...
Well, if you want to declare the parameter being const then you should write:
Very observant :) I didn't express myself carefully enough. The parameter shouldn't be const, but rather the object being pointed to. (In other words: I coded it right, but worded it wrong.)