Paul Eggert wrote on 2005-11-18:
> I prefer putting type qualifiers like "const" after the types they
> modify, as that's more consistent. ...
>
> Not everyone agrees with this style, but I suspect this is often
> because they haven't thought through the consistency issues.
While I know that "cha
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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,
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
As you'
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. Simil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there a preference for 'const char *' over 'char const *'? A quick
grep of my locally-modified gnulib repository shows 208 "char const *" vs.
793 "const char *" in the .c and .h files. The GNU Coding Standards offer
no help - http://www.gnu.org/pr
