Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!diamond
From: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: the "const" qualifier
Message-ID: <1895@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 6 Aug 90 08:49:18 GMT
References: <1990Aug1.005200.21645@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <13462@smoke.BRL.MIL> <13475@smoke.BRL.MIL> <127@thor.UUCP>
Reply-To: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 21

In article <127@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes:

>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?

In section 3.5.3, the Semantics almost say that for arrays.  (However,
if a qualifier is "inherited" along the "wrong" path via a typedef,
then the standard does not define the result.)  The Semantics say
nothing for structs.

However, the Examples are a lot stronger.  The Examples state that
certain things are illegal even though the rules say nothing about
them.  I guess it's time for another interpretation.  (At least this
time, the Examples don't contradict the rules.)
-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC     diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com
This is me speaking.  If you want to hear the company speak, you need DECtalk.