| ??? 11/20/07 15:37 Read: times |
#147265 - True, but... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Brett Wallace said:
If you were to declare your pointer as follows, you shouldn't have an error... But if you then use that pointer to point to a non-const you will probably get the error (or its converse) there instead! That's the basic flaw: Stefan is trying to use a single pointer to point to both const and non-const objects... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Sequence of learning 8051, asm and C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 2 Issues | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| my wrong path | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OT, but | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OT - error message | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use the tags | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| single-character const | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| QED? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| As Erik suggests | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Just learning - too luxury. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| how can that be "too luxorious" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Foolish builder? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| pointer to a const | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| True, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Explaining | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| helpfull ,thanks, but.. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Declaration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Adjust declaration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
thanks again | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| const | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no wrong path | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| learning C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Freebies | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Erik is right | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not necessary | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You\'re skipping the most important step ... | 01/01/70 00:00 |