the "const" qualifier

[diamond@tkovoa]

In article <127 at thor.UUCP> scjones at thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes:

>It seems to me that there used to be a statement in the standard that
>said basically that if an aggregate is qualified, all of the members
>are effectively qualified, and if a member of an aggregate is
>qualified, then the aggregate is effectively qualified.  Now I don't
>seem to be able to find it.  Am I imagining things again, did I miss
>it, or did we remove it?

In section 3.5.3, the Semantics almost say that for arrays.  (However,
if a qualifier is "inherited" along the "wrong" path via a typedef,
then the standard does not define the result.)  The Semantics say
nothing for structs.

However, the Examples are a lot stronger.  The Examples state that
certain things are illegal even though the rules say nothing about
them.  I guess it's time for another interpretation.  (At least this
time, the Examples don't contradict the rules.)
-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC     diamond at tkou02.enet.dec.com
This is me speaking.  If you want to hear the company speak, you need DECtalk.