"Michael Lotz" <mmlr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is really the one thing I also disagree. For one thing it simply
> looks ugly to me to have the * or & attached to the type, but this is
> a
> preference with no real technical basis. BTW I could agree to "char*
> ",
> but it gets funny when you specify "const char*" or even "extern
> const
> char*". It looks inconsistent to me to have spacing between the
> "const"
> and the "char" and then not between the "char" and the "*". Of course
> you cannot write "constchar*", but for me it looks more natural to be
> consequent and have all the parts of the type separated by spaces
> which
> results in "const char *".
Think of "const" and "static" as attributes or qualifiers to the type
"char*" itself if that helps.
Bye,
Axel.
