On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Richard Hipp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8/26/17, Igor Korot <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Is there a reason why the aforementioned function returns "const unsigned
>> char *" instead of just "const char *"?
> This is due to some bad planning that occurred about 15 years ago, but
> which must be carried forward to preserve 100% API compatibility.
It happens to the best of us. ;-)
Compatibility rules and it has to be preserved.
>> Will I miss anything if I cast out "unsigned"?