Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Volatile type in ANSI C
Message-ID: <1718@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 15:09:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1718
Posted: Thu May  9 15:09:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 02:08:21 EDT
References: <5549@utzoo.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 30

>[henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)]
>
> ... It provides both.  "volatile int *foo;" declares a nonvolatile
>pointer to volatile; "int * volatile foo;" declares a volatile pointer
>to nonvolatile.  (Excuse me a moment while I barf over the syntax.)

What made me toss my cookies over this syntax is the apparent
inconsistency between the following:

1.  volatile int *foo;
2.  int * volatile foo;

In number 1, the _volatile_ immediately precedes the component of
the declaration corresponding to the volatile object (the _int_).
In number 2, the _volatile_ *follows* the corresponding component
(the _*_).  I find this inconsistency confusing; why doesn't the
_volatile_ always precede its corresponding component?  In other
words, number 2 would become:

2a. int volatile * foo;

I think this is a more consistent, and therefore superior, syntax.

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]