converting a char* to a const char*

[Sean Farrow]

Hi:
What is best and safest way of converting a char* to a const char *? Can I
use const_cast?
Cheers
Sean.

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

"Sean Farrow" <se*********@se anfarrow.co.ukw rites:

Hi:
What is best and safest way of converting a char* to a const char *? Can I
use const_cast?

#include <iostream>
int main(){
char* c=new char[3];

const char* cc=c; // It's that simple!

c[0]='a';c[1]='b';c[2]=0;
std::cout<<cc<< std::endl;
return(0);
}
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__

[kwikius]

Sean Farrow wrote:

Hi:
What is best and safest way of converting a char* to a const char *? Can I
use const_cast?

No const_cast is rather technical and best not used (unless you *really*
understand what its purpose is). In a nutshell, if you have an object
that you know is not const but it appears as const via e.g a function
argument then you can use const_cast, otherwise you can't. IOW it
removes constness in the case where you know that a variable is in
memory and isnt constant, however for constants that realy are constant
it can have nasty efects. As its quite rare to know this much about what
a variable is except in private member functions and so on its rare to
need it.

regards
Andy Little

[Sean Farrow]

Hi:
it's a function call needing a const char*, I assume from your description,
then const_cast can be used.
Sean.
"kwikius" <an**@servocomm .freeserve.co.u kwrote in message
news:48******** **@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tisca li.com...

Sean Farrow wrote:

>Hi:
What is best and safest way of converting a char* to a const char *? Can
I use const_cast?

No const_cast is rather technical and best not used (unless you *really*
understand what its purpose is). In a nutshell, if you have an object that
you know is not const but it appears as const via e.g a function argument
then you can use const_cast, otherwise you can't. IOW it removes constness
in the case where you know that a variable is in memory and isnt constant,
however for constants that realy are constant it can have nasty efects. As
its quite rare to know this much about what a variable is except in
private member functions and so on its rare to need it.

regards
Andy Little

[Juha Nieminen]

Sean Farrow wrote:

What is best and safest way of converting a char* to a const char *? Can I
use const_cast?

You have got it backwards: const_cast is used to *remove* constness,
not to add it.

You don't need to do anything special to add constness to a pointer.
Anything that expects a const pointer can be given a non-const one.

[Eberhard Schefold]

Sean Farrow wrote:

it's a function call needing a const char*, I assume from your description,
then const_cast can be used.

void f( const char * );

....

void g( char * p )
{
f( p );
}
I fail to see where the problem is that you're trying to solve with
const_cast. Could you give a code example?

[Sean Farrow]

Hi:
I've solved the issue, it was const_cast I needed, that's going to teach me
to rad error info properly.
Thanks to everybody.
Sean.
"Juha Nieminen" <no****@thanks. invalidwrote in message
news:2q******** *****@read4.ine t.fi...

Sean Farrow wrote:

>What is best and safest way of converting a char* to a const char *? Can
I
use const_cast?

You have got it backwards: const_cast is used to *remove* constness,
not to add it.

You don't need to do anything special to add constness to a pointer.
Anything that expects a const pointer can be given a non-const one.

[Pete Becker]

On 2008-08-06 10:19:42 -0400, Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks. invalidsaid:

Sean Farrow wrote:

>What is best and safest way of converting a char* to a const char *? Can I
use const_cast?

You have got it backwards: const_cast is used to *remove* constness,
not to add it.

You don't need to do anything special to add constness to a pointer.
Anything that expects a const pointer can be given a non-const one.

Not to a raw pointer, but const_cast can be used to add const in cases
where there is no implicit conversion, such as a type with multiple
levels of indirection. Granted, this is obscure (which is why i only
mention it and don't give an example). const_cast can be used to add or
remove const; in the simple cases of adding const it's not needed, so
its primary use is, as you say, to remove const.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

[James Kanze]

On Aug 6, 4:19 pm, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks. invalidwrote:

Sean Farrow wrote:

What is best and safest way of converting a char* to a const
char *? Can I use const_cast?

You have got it backwards: const_cast is used to *remove*
constness, not to add it.

Usually. It can be used either way, and there are times when
you want to explicitly add the const, to control overload
resolution, or template instantiation, for example. Most of the
time. of course, you don't bother, since the compiler will
happily add all the consts you want, if needed.

You don't need to do anything special to add constness to a
pointer. Anything that expects a const pointer can be given a
non-const one.

For first-level const. You can't pass a char** to a function
expecting a char const**.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[kwikius]

On Aug 6, 3:10*pm, "Sean Farrow" <sean.far...@se anfarrow.co.ukw rote:

Hi:
it's a function call needing a const char*, I assume from your description,
then const_cast can be used.

Nope! Dont bother with it. make a copy of the string or use
std::string.

regards
Andy Little