[tz] suggestions for potential code improvements?

[Paul Eggert]

Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
> If I read Kees’s comments correctly, he's talking about mismatches between declaration and definition.  That’s a different issue; the two should match.

Kees is not talking about this:

   int a (char *);
   int a (char const *v) {return *v;}

He's talking about this:

   int b (char *);
   int b (char *const v) {return *v;}

Although the first combination is invalid, the second one conforms to the C 
standard and this has been true since C89.  Any compiler that warns about the 
second combination is merely complaining about style; it's not a correctness issue.