Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language

[Oleh Krehel]

Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello, Oleh.
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 01:27:49PM +0200, Oleh Krehel wrote:
>
>> May I ask if there's a reason to not have a single style for const
>> pointers? I get 2162 occurrences of "const char *", and 357 occurrences
>> of "char const *" in the C sources.
>
> Yes there is.  The two are semantically different.  In one of them, it is
> the pointer which is declared constant.  In the other, it's what's
> pointed at that's constant.  Though I can never remember which is which.
> :-(

Hi Alan,

Actually, "const char *" and "char const *" are absolutely equivalent in
all regards, both in C and C++.

I think you meant the difference between "const char *" and "char * const".

For exactly this reason (the confusion over 3 notations, 2 of which are
the same), I propose that we stick only to "const char *" and "char * const",
and don't use "char const *".

    Oleh