Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Qualified array or function types
Message-ID: <11636@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 17 Nov 89 19:22:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: smoke.11636
References: <11144@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <11144@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> diamond@ws.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) writes:
>Section 3.5.3, page 65 lines 23 to 25, cite array types or function
>types that include type qualifiers.  Footnote 65 says that these can
>only occur through the use of typedefs.  Footnote 65 seems to be false.
>I cannot find any Constraint or Semantic "shall" (or even "can") that
>prevents
>  const a[3];

That's not an example of what Footnote 65 is referring to;
that's an ordinary application of the type qualifier "const"
to the member type (int), not to the array type, and the
qualifier is valid there.  However, the attempted declaration
	int a const [3];
is disallowed by the grammar, and that is what Footnote 65
is discussing -- since the grammar disallows this, how COULD
one have the specification of an array (similarly, function)
type (as opposed to some subtype) include any type qualifiers?
Footnote 65 answers that question.