Re: Is `char const *foo;' legal?

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #6181

#6181

From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1990 20:02

6 lines
700 bytes

In article <25ABBF93.9618@paris.ics.uci.edu> rfg@paris.ics.uci.edu (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>Did I miss something?  Which binding is "correct"?  Why?

"char const TOKENS" is equivalent to "const char TOKENS".  If you want
the "const" to qualify something within the "TOKENS" part, you have to
wedge it into the "TOKENS".

Technical Details

Message-ID: <11936@smoke.BRL.MIL>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn

References: <25ABBF93.9618@paris.ics.uci.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Is `char const *foo;' legal?
Message-ID: <11936@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 12 Jan 90 20:02:59 GMT
References: <25ABBF93.9618@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 6

Reply to Parent Message