From -3204969733220525007 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9d8a465d14c25851,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Mark Jones Subject: strchr should be fixed in the standard Date: 1997/05/06 Message-ID: <336F6A69.2DD8@booksys.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 239911845 X-Original-Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 12:29:13 -0500 Organization: Book Systems, Inc. X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUBM2+NfUy4NqrwXLNJAQFC4QIAzSCc3M6gIBOfmqsmiZmn8bWkawoy3e63 JMwOl8CdAsSIDqiJV1aB6NuZIHZWjFKyz3YyLJro9Pe7iPL00Irc0w== =OOjP Reply-To: mark@booksys.com Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com myfunc(const char *s) { char *d = strchr(s, 'c'); . . . *d = 0; // violates the const char * protection } The above code is subtle and should be flagged by the compiler. But won't be because of the way that strchr is declared. Has anyone given thought to having two version of strchr? const char *strchr(const char *s, int c) and char *strchr(char *s, int c) This is one that could not be fixed in C because there is no overloading. However this one could be fixed in C++ Comments? Is this old news? --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]