const static Vs. static const

[Dave]

const static int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

Comeau online gives this warning:
"ComeauTest.c", line 10: warning: storage class is not first const static
int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

Why is static const preferable to const static?

Thanks!

[Ron Natalie]

Dave wrote:

const static int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

Comeau online gives this warning:
"ComeauTest.c", line 10: warning: storage class is not first const static
int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

Why is static const preferable to const static?

Because it's not legal. The grammar doewsn't allow the
storage-clas-specifier to be inserted inside the type specifier.
Comeaus error message is hwoever wrong (or at least misleading.
The storage class specifier need not be first:

const int static ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

is perfectly legal. Inserting static between const and int
is not however.

[John Carson]

"Ron Natalie" <ro*@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:42**********************@news.newshosting.com

Dave wrote:

const static int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

Comeau online gives this warning:
"ComeauTest.c", line 10: warning: storage class is not first const
static int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

Why is static const preferable to const static?

Because it's not legal. The grammar doewsn't allow the
storage-clas-specifier to be inserted inside the type specifier.
Comeaus error message is hwoever wrong (or at least misleading.
The storage class specifier need not be first:

const int static ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

is perfectly legal. Inserting static between const and int
is not however.

Are you sure? Comeau compiles both versions with the same warning. VC++ 7.1
compiles both versions with no warning.

--
John Carson

[Larry I Smith]

Ron Natalie wrote:

Dave wrote:

const static int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

Comeau online gives this warning:
"ComeauTest.c", line 10: warning: storage class is not first const static
int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

Why is static const preferable to const static?

Because it's not legal. The grammar doewsn't allow the
storage-clas-specifier to be inserted inside the type specifier.
Comeaus error message is hwoever wrong (or at least misleading.
The storage class specifier need not be first:

const int static ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

is perfectly legal. Inserting static between const and int
is not however.

GCC g++ v3.3.4 compiles both of these statements without error
or warning (even with '-Wall -ansi -pedantic' compile options):

const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;
static const int ARRAY_SIZE2 = 4;

This statement produces the compile error:
"error: syntax error before `static'"

const int static ARRAY_SIZE3 = 4;

Regards,
Larry

--
Anti-spam address, change each 'X' to '.' to reply directly.

[Teddy]

const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;
static const int ARRAY_SIZE2 = 4;
const int static ARRAY_SIZE3 = 4;

VC2005 BETA2 compiles all the three statements without error or warning

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Teddy:

const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;
static const int ARRAY_SIZE2 = 4;
const int static ARRAY_SIZE3 = 4;

VC2005 BETA2 compiles all the three statements without error or warning

I'm unable to find any restriction on the order in the standard; assuming
there is no such there should be six valid combinations.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Teddy]

yes, there should be six valid combinations.
but do they have the same meaning ?
i think i'm a little bit confused.

[Dave]

"Teddy" <du********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

yes, there should be six valid combinations.
but do they have the same meaning ?
i think i'm a little bit confused.

If they're all valid, then yes they would have the same meaning. The
questions centers around whether or not they are all valid.

[Rolf Magnus]

Larry I Smith wrote:

GCC g++ v3.3.4 compiles both of these statements without error
or warning (even with '-Wall -ansi -pedantic' compile options):
You forgot to add -W to the options.
const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;
With -W, it says:
"warning: `static' is not at beginning of declaration"
static const int ARRAY_SIZE2 = 4;

This statement produces the compile error:
"error: syntax error before `static'"

const int static ARRAY_SIZE3 = 4;

[Larry I Smith]

Rolf Magnus wrote:

Larry I Smith wrote:

GCC g++ v3.3.4 compiles both of these statements without error
or warning (even with '-Wall -ansi -pedantic' compile options):

You forgot to add -W to the options.

const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;

With -W, it says:
"warning: `static' is not at beginning of declaration"

Hmm, you are correct.

Thanks for the info about '-W'.

The doc supplied with g++ v3.3.4 ('info GCC') does not
mention '-W'. It does discuss many '-W...' options
that can all be enabled via '-Wall' and disabled with
'-w' (lowercase).

It seems that '-W -Wall' needs to be specified to
turn on all warnings. The '-Wall' switch name is
misleading - it doesn't enable 'all' warnings.

Sadly, it appears that the GCC docs are incomplete.

Regards,
Larry

--
Anti-spam address, change each 'X' to '.' to reply directly.

[Ron Natalie]

John Carson wrote:

Are you sure? Comeau compiles both versions with the same warning. VC++
7.1 compiles both versions with no warning.

No actually, it looks like I was wrong. Comeau's still wrong.
The decl-specifier-seq can be made up of an arbitrary order of
type-specifiers and storage-class-specifiers. The const (a
CV-qualifer) and the int (a simple-type-name) are type-specifiers.
Static is a storage-class-specifier. I can't find any applicable
semantic restriction that applies.