Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Const-qualified function return type in C - is it a part of function type?
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 10:06:32 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <86wo8ebion.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <r2plun$4vl$1@dont-email.me> <45853431-d208-46e0-8945-78a42ed1a83e@googlegroups.com> <r2ps1k$54e$1@dont-email.me> <cN%3G.128006$8Y7.26554@fx05.iad> <r2q8pd$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <8736b2aeib.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a1e79922b2c02e9149a52088916eaff2"; logging-data="18359"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/I4ESbDtmxUZ6WdgRrxySGVzdkZ0s887s="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+RTPUgc5BXulOQ3d/+vX8aEP6g8= sha1:jaUYiVr365ftb//NWfNeKQbRXc0=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:150156

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes:
> <cut>
>
>> To avoid any further wastage of time on this irrelevant matter I
>> hereby postulate one more time:  the above quoted passage refers to
>> qualifiers applied to the function type itself (which, BTW, is only
>> possible through typedef names).
>
> And interesting detail, which I can't interpret...  In all versions of
> the C standard, there is a footnote attached to the paragraph
>
>   "If the specification of an array type includes any type qualifiers,
>   the element type is so qualified, not the array type.  If the
>   specification of a function type includes any type qualifiers, the
>   behavior is undefined."
>
> In C90, this footnote seems to be:
>
>   59) Both of these can only occur through the use of typedefs.
>
> By C99 it appears to have become
>
>   118) Both of these can occur through the use of typedefs.
>
> Why the change I wonder?

I believe it was prompted by point 8 in this document, written by
Doug Gwyn (dated 1997):

    http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n762.htm

> Is there a way to qualify a function or array
> type without a typedef?  I can't see one.

I believe there is not.  My guess is Doug was confused about what
the footnoted sentence was meant to say, which in turn led him to
misinterpret the footnote.

> By the way, I hedge with "seems be" and "appears to have become" because
> I don't have either standard, only pre-publication drafts.  Maybe
> someone with the actual text can verify?

I believe the quotes you give match the published standards
exactly, except that the footnotes have different numbers.

Incidentally, when I say "I believe" it means I think the
statement following "believe" is true, even though I may not be
prepared to demonstrate its truth.  This is in contrast to
expressing an opinion, which is not about statements of
fact and so not subject to being disproved.