> Ralph Corderoy hat am 6. Mai 2018 um 00:03
> geschrieben:
> Just to make certain we're arguing about the same thing, I'm talking C
> here, not C++. I've no idea whether C++ is the same or different in
> this respect, and don't wish to learn. :-)
As said the same applies for C++. "const int
Hi Mike,
You dropped the list. That's fine if it were deliberate; just
checking.
> > > >> const char *foo;
> > > >> char const *foo;
> >
> > No, those two have identical meaning.
...
> These examples are found there.
> (( reformatted for emphasis ))
>
> void Foo( int *
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 05:27:39PM +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > >> const char *foo;
> > >> char const *foo;
>
> No, those two have identical meaning.
Not according to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const_(computer_programming)
This is a rather through discussion of the topic.
Wel
At 2018-05-05T12:18:26-0400, Mike Bianchi wrote:
> The placement of const is _not_ a matter of style!
>
> >> For example,
> >> in C code, it is very common to see:
> >>
> >> const char *foo;
> >>
> >> which means something very different from:
> >>
> >> char const *foo;
> >
> > Actually, it
Hi Mike,
> The placement of const is _not_ a matter of style!
Yes, it is, in part.
> >> const char *foo;
> >> char const *foo;
>
> Actually it does.
No, those two have identical meaning. Really. Keith has also agreed
this. See my email to the list from a few minutes ago.
--
Cheers, R
The placement of const is _not_ a matter of style!
>> For example,
>> in C code, it is very common to see:
>>
>> const char *foo;
>>
>> which means something very different from:
>>
>> char const *foo;
>
> Actually, it doesn't. Try it.
Actually it does.
AND
char *foo const;
Also m
