> Very, very close; unfortunately, you need to cast away the const here,
> or have those be "const TTY_NODE **"'s.
> 
> (This is why I dislike const.)

This is why _I_ like const, actually.

If data isn't supposed to be changed, then marking it with 'const':

	(1) causes a lot of warnings, and
	(2) will keep causing warnings until you either cast it away
	    or fix all of the places where the 'const' data has its
	    const-ness violated.

Add gcc's -Wcast-qual, and you've got a real winner.


If data shouldn't be modified, it shouldn't be modified.  const helps
enforce that.  Certainly, one could design a function that made proper
use with 'const' impossible, but i'd call that bad design...


cgd