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 char const
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, char * const *
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've probably
-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 -
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
