Re: CONST ==> const

n> Is this really a good idea? There's a really good reason that Jaime n> put in CONST, it's because const is broken in lots of environments n> (compilers+header files). m>The deed is done. Show me a broken system, and it'll be one that was m>already broken before the change. Jamie probably made that change m>around 1992, when ANSI C was only 3 years old. 'const' is broken on AIX 4.1/4.2, not for ordinary usage but debuggers don't want to show you the value of any 'const' parameter. Whenever I want to use a debugger I have to compile my stuff with '-Dconst=""'. Of course it's not any easier to mess around with the definition of CONST, but I thought I should just point it out. -Tor