home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: solon.com!not-for-mail
- From: Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c.moderated
- Subject: Re: const pointer confusion...
- Date: 27 Mar 1996 17:59:22 -0600
- Organization: none
- Sender: clc@solutions.solon.com
- Approved: clc@solutions.solon.com
- Message-ID: <4jckoq$a32@solutions.solon.com>
- References: <4j06gm$7oa@solutions.solon.com> <4j41io$nma@solutions.solon.com> <4j6389$3iq@solutions.solon.com> <4ja3s4$par@solutions.solon.com>
- Reply-To: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
- NNTP-Posting-Host: solutions.solon.com
- X-NNTP-Posting-Host: genesis.demon.co.uk
- X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
- X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk
-
- In article <4ja3s4$par@solutions.solon.com>
- kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de "James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763" writes:
-
- >I agree about not using any old arbitrary order, but the cv-qualifiers
- >should definitly come *after* what they modify. It is only in the
- >declaration-specifier that you have any freedom. In the declarator,
- >the cv-qualifier *must* follow what it modifies. So why do it any
- >differently here.
-
- Personally I think it reads more clearly with the qualifier prior to the
- type.
-
- --
- -----------------------------------------
- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
- Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
- -----------------------------------------
-