Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpwala!hpavla!gary
From: gary@hpavla.AVO.HP.COM (Gary Jackoway)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Question about Declaration Specifiers
Message-ID: <9130005@hpavla.AVO.HP.COM>
Date: 27 Feb 90 15:10:01 GMT
References: <750@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Avondale Division
Lines: 20

>>I was always under the impression that the rule had to be
>>Declaration_Specifiers : Type_Qualifier Storage_Class_Specifier Type_Specifier

> No, in fact the storage class should be the first word (all other orderings
> are obsolescent).  Nothing is said about the relative ordering of qualifier
> and type specifier, but because of the interaction between qualifiers and `*',
> it can be argued that the logical ordering is SCS TS TQ:
> 	extern int const x;   /* x is a constant int */
> 	extern int const * p; /* p is a pointer to a constant int */
> 	extern int * const p; /* p is a constant pointer to an int */
> This is my preferred ordering.  Opinions will differ.

----------
Too bad you can't do this in MSC.  The "near" specifier has to be
immediately before the function definiton.  This leads to yukky looking
defintions like:
	static int * near foo();
Sigh.

Gary Jackoway