Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[...]

C was already well established before 'const' was invented, and it
was a number of years after that before some C compilers started
allowing 'const' in source code.  The cost of not being backward
compatible would be high;  the cost adding const incrementally in
new code is low.  Generally speaking using string literals in open
code is a bad idea anyway, regardless whether there is any concern
that the string might be modified.  I think most people who want
string literals to be of type const char[] are only thinking about
one side of the equation.  It's always important to remember to
look at both sides of the cost/benefit forces, and not focus on
just the (imagined) benefits or (imagined) downsides.

I can't speak for most people, but I want string literals to be const
and I've thought about both sides of the equation.  (Existing code could
be compiled with options to enable the old behavior and could be changed
incrementally.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */