[OT] Re: [PATCH] Choose syntax

[Pavel Tsekov <ptsekov gmx net>]

Hello,

Marking it out of topic so it can be distinguished from the real
discussion :)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:20:10PM +0300, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > Though it didn't become clear from his posts which part of the
> > construct causes the compiler to barf
> >
> the declaration of constants. the const keyword as an attribute to
> pointers is "new" as well, but supported by most compilers for two
> decades or something, basically since it came up in c++. however, const
> variables (which tend to occupy no space if no address of them is used)
> is a relatively new concept (also coming from c++), and i remember a

Well it is certainly mentiond in the 1990 ANSI C standard (6.5.3 Type
Qualifiers). And as I am reading it the decision whether to allocte
storage or not is left to the implementation.

> recent (well, 1-2 years) case we had in kde where some (c++) compiler
> did not get a construct with const right. unfortunately i forgot the
> details.

There are certainly compilers that do not get the things right :) I
remember having a lot of fun with MSVC.