And the C library‘s hacks around not being able to overload functions (which is the only reason for strstr et al‘s weird signature) wouldn‘t stop me from using const. It can be really useful both for documentation and for correctness. Think memcpy, not strstr.
But read 2 sentences further, where I had addressed this already.
> Think memcpy, not strstr.
See my other comments, I do think that making const function parameters is generally good for documentation and compatibility. strstr() is only a showcase for the limitations. Typically, const works for function parameters but not data structures.
Ever seen a ROM?
And the C library‘s hacks around not being able to overload functions (which is the only reason for strstr et al‘s weird signature) wouldn‘t stop me from using const. It can be really useful both for documentation and for correctness. Think memcpy, not strstr.