const in latest draft

[Henry Spencer]

In article <16259 at gryphon.COM> sarima at gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen) writes:
>... I have the Jan. 11, 1988
>version of the draft standard and would like to know if there have been any
>substantive changes in the rules regarding type qualifiers since then, other
>than dropping the noalias qualifier.

In a word, yes.  I don't even remember what the Jan 88 draft said, but it
is almost certainly badly out of date by now.  The qualifier situation was
a mess, and has been cleaned up considerably.

>	In particular, I would like to know if the clause in 3.5.3 stating
>that "For two qualified types to be compatible, both shall have the identically
>qualified version of a compatible type" is still present?

Yes.

>...is the
>footnote on the previous page stating "The implementation may place a const
>object that is not volatile in read-only storage" still present?

Yes.

>I presume
>that it is still true that "All declarations that refer to the same object
>or function shall have compatible type; otherwise the behavior is undefined"
>(as per 3.1.2.6).

Yes.
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry at zoo.toronto.edu