Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 the "const" after the "char *", where it belongs. Similarly, "char const *" puts the "const" after the "char" -- also (I'd argue) where it belongs. Not everyone agrees with this style, but I suspect this is often because they haven't thought through the consistency issues. And it is true that POSIX and C99 prefer "const" at the front rather than at the logical place. A pity. If you want to mess with people's heads, you can use types like this: const int const long const signed const long const const const * That's perfectly valid C, and it means the same thing as "long long const *". For a few more details, see <http://www.cs.ucla.edu/classes/fall05/cs131/hw/hw5.html>. (This was probably my least-popular assignment this quarter....) _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
