"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.