4 ms·

What's the author's justification? What's your justification? > They all read correctly now, when read right-to-left. ... suppose I'm someone who reads from

• liblfds-temp 2y ago
  Readability. C declarations can become unfriendly by being too complex and disordered.
  • wruza 2y ago
    Nothing seems wrong with “volatile double pointer as a constant” or “constant character pointer” either, tbh. The way you presented is equivalent, but non-idiomatic, people would stumble upon it often. To become more readable universally this must have been adopted 50 years ago.
• Someone 2y ago
  > What's the author's justification? What's your justification? I’m neither of them, but chances are that’s because you can’t make them left-to-right all the time. double const *foo; // foo is a pointer to a const double double *const foo; // foo is a const pointer to a double compile and do what the comment says; these do not compile: * const double foo; // a pointer to a const double named “foo” foo * const double; // foo is a pointer to a const double
  • spc476 2y ago
    I use the "right-to-left" style myself. To me, the qualifier (in this case, const), applies to the item to the right. This could be confusing: const char *const ptr; The first const applies to the char, but the second one to the pointer itself. Being consistent: char const *const ptr; The first const applies to the item to its left---char. The second const applies to the item to its left---the pointer. To recap: char *ptr1; // modifiable pointer to modifiable data char const *ptr2; // modifiable pointer to const data char *const ptr3; // const pointer to modifiable data char const *const ptr4; // const pointer to const data