Clarifying 'const' terminology

[Bruno Medeiros]

Deewiant wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> There are some variations in const semantics. In C++, const is a
>> type-modifier, meaning that const can be applied to each type element,
>> and not the "variable as whole". Best to give an example. In C++ you can
>> have:
>>   const int * iptr = ...;
>>   int const * iptr = ...;
>>   const int const * iptr = ...;
>> each with different meanings:
>>
>>   const int * iptr = ...;
>>   // cannot modify the pointed int, can modify the pointer
>>
>>   int const * iptr = ...;
>>   // can modify the pointed int, cannot modify the pointer (the pointer
>> is const)
>>
>>   const int const * iptr = ...;
>>   // Cannot modify the pointed int, nor cannot modify the pointer
>>
> 
> Actually, the former two are equivalent. To clarify (equivalent types are paired
> on one line):
> 
> const int, int const
> const int *, int const *
> const int * const, int const * const
> int * const
> 

Oops, that's right, thanks for correcting me. I should have tested it, 
it's not the first time it got const declarations mixed up, damn C++ ... :p

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D