Ben Pfaff wrote: > Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> writes: > >> Paul Eggert wrote: >>> I agree with Bruno on this point. It's hard enough to read C code >>> without having to wade through all those 'const's on local variables. >> >> By "local variables" you must mean "local scalar variables". >> You wouldn't argue for dropping "const" as a pointer attribute. > > Are you thinking of pointers as not being scalars? In C, scalar > types include pointer types, see C99 6.2.5: "Arithmetic types and > pointer types are collectively called scalar types."
Definitely. I hope that was obvious from the context. I suppose a language lawyer would have said "local scalar non-pointer variables". > (I don't have anything real to add to the discussion, but it's > good to be careful about vocabulary.) Thanks. We're all into nit-picking, after all.
