🚀 go-pugleaf

vinoski@apollo.hp.com (Stephen Vinoski) writes:
>	void tfunc(int *const arg);
>with the argument actually being a const pointer to int.
>The latter interpretation is exactly the same as the "const applied to
>typedef" problem:
>	typedef int *IntPtr;
>	const IntPtr int_ptr;
>Here, int_ptr is a const pointer to int (sometimes much to the
>amazement of C++ novices :-)).

The `solution' is to write your declarations like this:

simple-type-name type-specifiers

that means

int const foo;
instead of
const int foo;

The only disadvantage of doing it this way is that hardly anybody does.
I find it much clearer, especially when you get into complicated
declarations.

Chris