On 05/05/18 10:48, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > (Incidentally, I share your preference for putting type qualifiers > [as opposed to storage classes] _after_ the type name itself. It > makes complex declarations easier to understand.)
Personally, I consider that to be a poor choice ... especially if you are making it on purely stylistic grounds; conventionally: const int foo; is more common than: int const foo; but that's not the real issue. In practice, the placement of "const" qualifiers is *not* arbitrary; far from "making the declaration easier to understand", it can effect a subtle change in meaning. For example, in C code, it is very common to see: const char *foo; which means something very different from: char const *foo; Your stylistic preference might encourage the latter idiom, but it likely isn't what you meant. (The former declares a mutable pointer to an immutable C-string; the latter is an immutable pointer to a mutable C-string). -- Regards, Keith.
