Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com> wrote: ...
+int vethCreate(char* veth1, int veth1MaxLen, + char* veth2, int veth2MaxLen) +{ + int rc = -1; + const char *argv[] = {
I think Jim insists on having const char const * [], but I bet he will explain this better than me :-)
+ "ip", "link", "add", veth1, "type", "veth", "peer", "name", veth2, NULL
You're right that I encourage the "const correct" approach ;-) To tell the compiler (and more importantly, the reader) that you have a const array of const strings, you'd declare it like this: const char *const argv[] = { or, equivalently, the const can go after the type name of "char": char const *const argv[] = { However, argv is one place where it pays to relax const-correctness guidelines, at least in C, because so many interfaces require non-const "char **argv" pointers. IMHO, it's better to avoid const altogether in this limited case than to be forced to litter the code with ugly and dangerous const-adjusting casts to accommodate "correctness".