Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones
From: scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: the "const" qualifier
Message-ID: <127@thor.UUCP>
Date: 5 Aug 90 14:45:54 GMT
References: <1990Aug1.005200.21645@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <13462@smoke.BRL.MIL> <13475@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati
Lines: 21

In article <13475@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> Supposedly the constraint in 3.3.16.1 that requires the thing pointed to
> by the LHS to have all the qualifiers of the thing pointed to by the RHS
> is violated.  For this to work, the "mem" member of the struct "cs" must
> also be considered to be const-qualified, which is reasonable but hard
> to deduce from the wording in the standard.  Basically, all parts of an
> object declared with a type qualifier are also so qualified.

It seems to me that there used to be a statement in the standard that
said basically that if an aggregate is qualified, all of the members
are effectively qualified, and if a member of an aggregate is
qualified, then the aggregate is effectively qualified.  Now I don't
seem to be able to find it.  Am I imagining things again, did I miss
it, or did we remove it?
----
Larry Jones                         UUCP: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones
SDRC                                      scjones@thor.UUCP
2000 Eastman Dr.                    BIX:  ltl
Milford, OH  45150-2789             AT&T: (513) 576-2070
Girls are like slugs -- they probably serve some purpose, but
it's hard to imagine what. -- Calvin