🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KANZE.96Apr17121453@slsvgqt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>
kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763) writes:

|> In article <3173B383.41C67EA6@rstcorp.com> "Aaron S. Binns"
|> <asbinn@rstcorp.com> writes:

|> |> [Moderator's note: This is crossposted to comp.std.c++ and
|> |> comp.lang.c++, and followups have been set to comp.std.c++. mha]

|> |> I recently came across a piece of code that reads:

|> |> class A {
|> |>   // contents of class A
|> |> } a1, *a2, const *a3;

|> While I personally wouldn't write anything like this, it is definitly
|> legal.

Actually, on further thought, I don't think it is legal.  In the statement:

	A const*		a3 ;

The const is part of the `declaration-specifiers', and not the
`declarator'.  When multiple symbols are declared in the same line, as
here, the list contains declarators, and cannot contain additional parts
of the declaration-specifiers.

A quick check of the grammar shows that the first token of a declarator
must be one of { `*', `(' , <identifier> }.  The keyword `const' is none
of these.
-- 
James Kanze           (+33) 88 14 49 00          email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, 67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                            -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your 
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu 
]