Hi Ingo, > > Perhaps you're in a bit of a silo? :-) > > Perhaps. :-)
Branden's cited one source he's seen. I had a Google last night, but was too tired to post the results. A _Dr Dobbs_ blog article in 2010 recommends always writing `int const'. http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/the-mutable-comprehension-of-const/228700195 Google's style guide acknowledges both flavours exist, encourages the long-standing one, but allows either, saying `be consistent with the code around you'. https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Use_of_const Microsoft write `int const'. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/cpp/c-language/type-qualifiers#syntax So the recommendation has been around a while, and significantly enough for Google to have to mention it, and Microsoft's author of that one page to use it. :-) I don't know if C++ has different semantics that mean choice of position is less flexible; I've just been talking about C. -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
