[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: style question - const char *
From: |
Bob Proulx |
Subject: |
Re: style question - const char * |
Date: |
Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:11:50 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Eric Blake <address@hidden> 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
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: style question - const char *,
Bob Proulx <=