const does not apply to pointers?

[mlimber]

Precisely what I do in my real code. I was simplifying here so as not
to obscure the main issue.

However, your point is well-taken, and I probably shouldn't have
bothered simplifying that part.

Cheers! --M

 

[Earl Purple]

It is necessary.

Yes it is necessary that assignment cannot take place but not necessary
to explicitly disable it as the preference of a const member will
automatically do that for you.

 

[Noah Roberts]

Once you get past a trivial declaration you're not going
to be able to linearly translate into something lexically
symentric. I say:
const char STAR foo
If I'm reading the code, but if I'm describing the
type I say
pointer to const char.

Trying to say something like

int *(*foo)(const char*, int(*)());

is just going to be gibberish read left to right.

Yeah, well do whatever you want. I find code more readable when it
reads clearly. I leave obscurity to those rare places where it's
needed. This also means I like sticking to "trivial" declarations
almost all the time.

 

[mlimber]

Yes it is necessary that assignment cannot take place but not necessary
to explicitly disable it as the preference of a const member will
automatically do that for you.

Right you are. At least one of my compiler complains, however, if I
don't explicitly disable it.

Cheers! --M