The pointer is no longer valid because the object it pointed to no longer
exists. The pointer is also no longer valid, but that is not the end of the
story.
It doesn't matter what has changed. All that matters is whether this is
something we normally want to happen to a const pointer or whether doing
this to a const pointer is not normal.
If you don't like having to cast, don't use 'const'. But if you use 'const',
you have to cast when you mean to do something that you would like to be
warned about if you do it by accident.
No, that's not what it means. It has nothing to do with memory. It has to do
with logical state.
I don't. You do, because you argue 'kfree' can be const because it doesn't
change the memory. The change in the memory is meaningless, the change in
the logical state of the object is what matters.
I don't know what you think this example proves. Nobody is arguing that so
long as one const pointer to an object exists, no code anywhere should ever
be able to change it.
All I'm saying is that changing the logical state of an object *through* a
const pointer is unusual. You should need a cast to do this because that's
the only way to get a warning if you do it by mistake.
Right, nobody said this was about guaranteeing that data doesn't change.
But that's exactly what doesn't matter. As you've said at least twice now,
it has nothing to do with changing the data. It has to do with changing the
logical state of the object. That's what you're not supposed to do through a
'const' pointer.
That's crazy.
I think you may be the only person in the world who thinks so.
DS
--
