Volatile binding for const?

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <PARDO.89Mar28105228 at uw-june.stars.flab.Fujitsu.JUNET> pardo at uw-june.stars.flab.Fujitsu.JUNET (David Keppel) writes:
>I'm confused about the proper binding for the `const' and `volatile'
>keywords.  Both of my `pANS conformant' (:-) compilers tell me
>something about storage qualifiers that I find counter-intuitive.
>	char const *s, *t;	=is=>  {char const *} s, t
>	char *const s, *t;	=is=>  char {const *s}, *t
>The second one makes sense to me.  The first one doesn't.  Is this
>behavior correct?  Is there a rationalle that would help my
>intuition get a little closer to reality?

Perhaps it will help to observe that `s' has a different type in the
two cases.  In the first case it is a pointer to a const char, while
in the second case it is a const pointer to a char.

Thus, "const" in the first case applies to "char" in effect, and is
thus part of the types for both `s' and `t'.  In the second case,
"const" applies to the "*" associated with `s' but not to the "*"
associated with `t'.