Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!botter!star.cs.vu.nl!maart
From: maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re^2: Question on const applied to typedef'd pointer
Message-ID: <2105@solo11.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 27 Feb 89 19:57:35 GMT
References: <9078@elsie.UUCP> <9709@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: V.U. Informatica, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Lines: 18

gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
\In article <9078@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes:
\>1>	const char * const	foo;
\>	typedef char *		bar;
\>2>	const bar const		baz;
\>The question for the gurus:  should line 1 above have the same meaning as
\>line 2 above, despite gcc's warning?

\No; you can't slip a qualifier "inside" an existing typedef.
\GCC is correct; both "consts" apply at the same lexical level,
\namely to the "bar" type.  The line tagged "2>" above is the
\same as
\	char * const const	foo;

Why? I find this illogical. Else how could one obtain what Arthur intended?
-- 
 "Those who do not understand Henry     |Maarten Litmaath @ VU Amsterdam:
Spencer are condemned to reinvent DOS." |maart@cs.vu.nl, mcvax!botter!maart