Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!decvax!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Question on const applied to typedef'd pointer
Message-ID: <11917@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 1 Mar 89 23:12:20 GMT
References: <9078@elsie.UUCP> <9709@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2105@solo11.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 18

In article <2105@solo11.cs.vu.nl> maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
>gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
>>In article <9078@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes:
>>>	typedef char *		bar;
>>>	const bar const		baz;
>>No; you can't slip a qualifier "inside" an existing typedef.
>>[That attempt] is the same as
>>	char * const const	foo;
>
>Why? I find this illogical.

Let me restate with a different example.  After `typedef char *string',
`string const x' means `char * const x' rather than `char const * x'.  Do you
still find this illogical?  In my opinion, this is true for essentially the
same reason that `string x, y' means `char *x, *y' rather than `char *x, y'.
Once you've created the typedef, it's set in stone.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint