Jim Meyering wrote: > Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Is there a preference for 'const char *' over 'char const *'? > > > > I prefer putting type qualifiers like "const" after the types they > > modify, as that's more consistent. For example, "char * const *" puts > > As you've probably noticed, I too prefer that. > For the same reason: syntactic consistency.
A random convergence just now landed me reading the following document with Stroustrup's feelings on the subject: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#constplacement It was interesting and related so I thought I would share it. Personally I don't really have an opinion and could go either way. But the history of it is very interesting. Bob _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
