On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:11 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Should this also be *const ? > > > > No. These are function protoypes. A "const" on a parameter value > > (pointer address, not pointed-to memory) makes no sense on a > > prototype. > > But couldn't you argue the same about variable names? In most (not all > :) ) we keep declaration + definition in sync. So thus my confusion. Variable names in the prototypes have no effect either, but they serve as useful documentation. Whereas the "const" on a parameter value documents nothing - it's an implementation detail whether the function would like to modify parameter values. That implementation detail has no effect for the caller. Of course, we could have "const" in the prototype as well. This boils down to personal taste. It's not my taste (has no use, has no effect, documents nothing, only adds noise for no gain), so I didn't add it. If you prefer to have that, I'll leave my taste and home and add it, but only after you guys make up your minds about whether you want to have const parameters at all.
