> Don't remember such an instance, but didn't Be itself change a char* to > const char* in one of the BMessage methods for Dano and that didn't break > binary compatibility? Would be interresting to see how they did it then. Maybe they just publish both constructors, but I fail to see how the compiler could allow way too similars constructor prototypes. > I thought "const" in particular is purely a hint for > the compiler regarding what is allowed and what isn't, but I have no clue. IIRC, the const attribute is mangled as K prefix letter. I'll check with gcc 4, but I can't with gcc 2.95.3 until tonigh. Philippe.