• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• From: David Tolpin <dvd@d...>
• Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:17:44 +0400 (AMT)
• In-reply-to: <20040125064228.GK21887@m...>

> So Joe's claim looks exactly right: passing a const char array to a
> function expecting a plain char array raises a warning; other combinations
> do not.  Granted that a cast will suppress this warning, but it will
> suppress almost every type warning in C (you can't cast a function pointer
> to something else, nor vice versa).

I'm convinced. It was me who didn't know how it worked; actually, I did
until I tried with a compiler claiming ANSI C conformance, got no warnings,
re-read the standard and was misled to think it should allow this usage.

David

• References:
  • Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: paterns for phones' numbers
• Next by Date: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Previous by thread: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Next by thread: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread