From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:47:05 +0000
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <39C30B5E.617F0721@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <02c301c01db9$8141c3e0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr>, <200009142041.VAA19586@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [9fans] no const?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0828eec8-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Steve Kilbane wrote:
> Well, I can't argue beyond this point: I know that 'const' in ANSI C
> doesn't mean quite what it should, and avoid using it for that reason
> (I particularly dislike not being able to remember whereabouts in the
> decl the damn thing should appear).

"const" does mean what it should, just as "char" means what it should.
The names may be misleading if you have no other clue, but you're not
supposed to be guessing about the language.

The "const" qualifier goes next to the thing it qualifies.
How hard is that rule to remember?
	const int *p;	// pointer to const int
	int const *p;	// pointer to const int
	int *const p;	// const pointer to int