On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:36:52AM +1000, matthew green wrote:
>   
>   personally, i think that where we are at the moment isn't all that
>   bad.  but...i'm open to change, if after reading this you still think
>   i'm wrong.
>
>personally, i think any use of __UNCONST() should be special, not
>a common case.  it's use in sysctl now seems to be common, so it
>seems that the right solution includes getting ride of them.

it remains to be seen if "getting rid of them" would amount to the
same number of instances of __UNCONST() as we have already...

there was a definite plan to what i had in mind, and const is not
(though being the closest) to what i had in mind.  closer would be a
definition of const that disappeared when kern_sysctl.c was
compiled...

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
werdna@squooshy.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."