🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4j639l$3ju@solutions.solon.com>, c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca says...
[ ... ] 

> There
> are some semantic restrictions on this syntactic freedom: a storage class
> specifier may appear only once, for instance, as may a type specifier:
> 
> 	int typedef extern auto foo;
> 
> is syntactically valid, but semantically incorrect, because it has three
> storage specifiers.

To use the wording from the standard, this violates a constraint.
 
> >  Which is a constant pointer to a constant integer; neither *p nor 
> >p can change.
> 
> Wrong. ``const int const'' is just a redundancy. It is the same as ``const
> int'' or ``int const''. A well-written compiler should warn you that you
> have the same type qualifier appearing twice.
> 
> In fact I just tried it with GCC and, indeed!, it warns about ``duplicate
> const'' in the declaration! Hooray!

This is also a constraint violation, so a conforming implementation must 
"issue a diagnostic" which is generally taken to mean an error message rather 
than a warning.  Warnings can (and generally are) given for code that's legal 
but may do unintended things, where errors are given for code that's actually 
illegal.  (If more gets dicussed along this line, it might be best to move it 
to comp.std.c?)
    Later,
    Jerry.