From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Oleh Krehel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:02:48 +0200 Message-ID: <87io6bou1j.fsf@gmail.com> References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87io6dl0h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87lhb82qxc.fsf@gmail.com> <878u78b3hg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87h9lwyv33.fsf@gmail.com> <561C368F.6010306@cs.ucla.edu> <87oag3xb2i.fsf@gmail.com> <20151013114630.GA4613@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444737850 799 80.91.229.3 (13 Oct 2015 12:04:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:04:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Paul Eggert , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 13 14:04:05 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlyJB-000240-9C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:03:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34085 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlyJA-0007zP-H0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:03:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49183) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlyHv-0007QC-Hc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:02:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlyHr-0000md-Ev for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:02:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]:38404) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlyHr-0000m6-8j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:02:35 -0400 Original-Received: by wieq12 with SMTP id q12so28913562wie.1 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 05:02:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=+cD2LHkioncb7jGbokdLDIKDcBYi5QyZoMPCJtHsl5Y=; b=soJnTlfp79bbtugVI+MjBfwL7IYZVbVFBHjijD6wMN7Iw3FpZpHUfLkD1o2LlcgLkI R3C3vdd/IrC5kSzIUwyfHQgpNWL5vyVs4+eCM55oXpJfIUZtdl7QdDHv7YlyFeaQQP6i K+5XICeqt3tLWuSsAdeY5IUOaJdCsX+STa6sjf0QXr7zqo79mA8ILGOt54nSRaFMmIlX f0x+0VG2sw3szZAv86c4gRDVe28/fPZU2e6pmnRXmke/QzRh+Q5Uka8H1WFY8TEHnFYN j4cUkgVywNs8Yf6zIRAxFevsU9gK1iT7yeEWgG5hdjcOK9w7t+N68HZMnEtxt4dKj5ns FYSg== X-Received: by 10.194.88.74 with SMTP id be10mr34938137wjb.67.1444737754487; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 05:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from firefly (dyn069045.nbw.tue.nl. [131.155.69.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hd7sm2612561wib.23.2015.10.13.05.02.33 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 05:02:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20151013114630.GA4613@acm.fritz.box> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:46:30 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::236 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:191449 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > Hello, Oleh. > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 01:27:49PM +0200, Oleh Krehel wrote: > >> May I ask if there's a reason to not have a single style for const >> pointers? I get 2162 occurrences of "const char *", and 357 occurrences >> of "char const *" in the C sources. > > Yes there is. The two are semantically different. In one of them, it is > the pointer which is declared constant. In the other, it's what's > pointed at that's constant. Though I can never remember which is which. > :-( Hi Alan, Actually, "const char *" and "char const *" are absolutely equivalent in all regards, both in C and C++. I think you meant the difference between "const char *" and "char * const". For exactly this reason (the confusion over 3 notations, 2 of which are the same), I propose that we stick only to "const char *" and "char * const", and don't use "char const *". Oleh