some questions about "const"

[nick]

1.int const x=5;
const int x=5;


2.const char *p=new char[20];
char const *p=new char[20];

the above pairs are equivalent?

thanks!

 

[Mark P]

1.int const x=5;
const int x=5;


2.const char *p=new char[20];
char const *p=new char[20];

the above pairs are equivalent?
yes


thanks!

 

[Neelesh]

1.int const x=5;
const int x=5;


2.const char *p=new char[20];
char const *p=new char[20];

the above pairs are equivalent?

thanks!

Refer Stroupstrup's C++ Style and Technique FAQ
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#constplacement

 

[Neelesh]

Refer Stroupstrup's C++ Style and Technique FAQ

Sorry for the splling mistake, typing error.
Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ Style and Techniques FAQ

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#constplacement

 

[Ivan Vecerina]

: 1.int const x=5;
: const int x=5;
:
: 2.const char *p=new char[20];
: char const *p=new char[20];
:
: the above pairs are equivalent?

Yes, so which one you use is a matter of stylistic convention.

I only use a leading const for true compile-time constants:
const int x = 5;
const double pi = 3.1415926535;
(note that these are never composite types).


In all other cases, I put const *after* the type it affects:
char const *const p = new char[20];
int const h = getHeight( myWindow );


hth -Ivan

 

[Howard]

1.int const x=5;
const int x=5;


2.const char *p=new char[20];
char const *p=new char[20];

the above pairs are equivalent?

thanks!

Yes. Simple rule: const modifies what is to its immediate left. BUT...if
there's nothing to its left, then it modifies what is to its immediate
right.

-Howard