Re: the "const" qualifier

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #1563

#1563

From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 1990 11:27

14 lines
1331 bytes

In article <127@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes:
>In article <13475@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>It seems to me that there used to be a statement in the standard that
>said basically that if an aggregate is qualified, all of the members
>are effectively qualified, and if a member of an aggregate is
>qualified, then the aggregate is effectively qualified.  Now I don't
>seem to be able to find it.  Am I imagining things again, did I miss
>it, or did we remove it?

Yeah, I was looking for that too, and I didn't find it either.
The only thing I found that was at all relevant said that a qualifier
in an array declaration actually qualifies the elements of the array,
not the array itself.  However, that's not what we're looking for..
I have no idea what might have happened to the part<->whole clause.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <13487@smoke.BRL.MIL>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!phri!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn

References: <13462@smoke.BRL.MIL> <13475@smoke.BRL.MIL> <127@thor.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!phri!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: the "const" qualifier
Message-ID: <13487@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 6 Aug 90 11:27:19 GMT
References: <13462@smoke.BRL.MIL> <13475@smoke.BRL.MIL> <127@thor.UUCP>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 14

Reply to Parent Message