On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:01:39PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote: > When did this change? "const char *ptr" used to mean that the thing > pointed to cannot be changed, but the pointer itself can be. So far > as I know, it still does. Educate me, please, if that's no longer so. > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 07:44:27PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > 3. Double `const' doesn't do any good. (I was once confused about this too.) > > > > > > (const char *const ptr? > > > > > > Why? I deem `const' can't make a code worse, only better, cause it makes an > > > additional description of variables/functions/code/algo...) > > > > > Because this is merely equivalent to "const char *ptr". > Someone already pointed that out. Me stands corrected. :-) There's a single example of this in n869.txt ISO C-99 draft I have.
Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
msg05859/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
