Article View: comp.std.c
Article #1249Re: int const * p;
From: Paul Eggert
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 04:28
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 04:28
15 lines
872 bytes
872 bytes
jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes: > const int * const a; >is OK. Yes, but it's terribly confusing. For consistency, you should always put `const' _after_ the type that it modifies. Just like `*'. So the declaration should be: int const * const a; It's too bad that common usage has this backwards. Even the standard's examples are backwards.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<bjxHFW|8@twinsun.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!twinsun!eggertReferences:
<180188INNmtc@fbi-news.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE> <181tsmINN8uh@fbi-news.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE> <15441@ksr.com> <la9uonINNp9m@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <15459@ksr.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.std.c Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!twinsun!eggert From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) Subject: Re: int const * p; Message-ID: <bjxHFW|8@twinsun.com> Sender: usenet@twinsun.com Nntp-Posting-Host: farside Organization: Twin Sun, Inc References: <180188INNmtc@fbi-news.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE> <181tsmINN8uh@fbi-news.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE> <15441@ksr.com> <la9uonINNp9m@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <15459@ksr.com> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:28:01 GMT Lines: 15