Re: [groff] placement of const is _not_ a matter of style ...

2018-05-06 Thread Carsten Kunze
> Ralph Corderoy hat am 6. Mai 2018 um 00:03 > geschrieben: > Just to make certain we're arguing about the same thing, I'm talking C > here, not C++. I've no idea whether C++ is the same or different in > this respect, and don't wish to learn. :-) As said the same

Re: [groff] placement of const is _not_ a matter of style ...

2018-05-06 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi Mike, You dropped the list. That's fine if it were deliberate; just checking. > > > >> const char *foo; > > > >> char const *foo; > > > > No, those two have identical meaning. ... > These examples are found there. > (( reformatted for emphasis )) > > void Foo( int *

Re: [groff] placement of const is _not_ a matter of style ...

2018-05-06 Thread Mike Bianchi
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 05:27:39PM +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > >> const char *foo; > > >> char const *foo; > > No, those two have identical meaning. Not according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const_(computer_programming) This is a rather through discussion of the topic.

Re: [groff] placement of const is _not_ a matter of style ...

2018-05-05 Thread G. Branden Robinson
At 2018-05-05T12:18:26-0400, Mike Bianchi wrote: > The placement of const is _not_ a matter of style! > > >> For example, > >> in C code, it is very common to see: > >> > >> const char *foo; > >> > >> which means something very different from: > >> > >> char const *foo; > > > > Actually, it

Re: [groff] placement of const is _not_ a matter of style ...

2018-05-05 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi Mike, > The placement of const is _not_ a matter of style! Yes, it is, in part. > >> const char *foo; > >> char const *foo; > > Actually it does. No, those two have identical meaning. Really. Keith has also agreed this. See my email to the list from a few minutes ago. -- Cheers,

[groff] placement of const is _not_ a matter of style ...

2018-05-05 Thread Mike Bianchi
The placement of const is _not_ a matter of style! >> For example, >> in C code, it is very common to see: >> >> const char *foo; >> >> which means something very different from: >> >> char const *foo; > > Actually, it doesn't. Try it. Actually it does. AND char *foo const; Also