\"const int\" vs. \"int const\": Does Keyword Placement Matter in C ?

The Enigma of "const int" and "int const": A Tale of Equivalence and Distinction

In the realm of C programming, the placement of the "const" keyword may raise questions about its implications. Consider the following code snippets:

<code class="cpp">int const x = 3;
const int x = 3;</code>

Are both code snippets syntactically correct? Moreover, do they convey the same meaning?

The Answer:

To answer these questions, we must delve into the intricacies of constant declarations in C . Surprisingly, both snippets are indeed valid and equivalent. They declare an integer variable named "x" with a constant value of 3, meaning its value cannot be modified throughout the program's execution.

The Distinction:

However, when dealing with pointer types, the order of "const" and the type specifier does make a difference. Let's examine the following examples:

<code class="cpp">// Declares a constant pointer to an int
const int *p = &someInt;

// Declares a pointer to a constant int
int * const p = &someInt;</code>

In the first case, the pointer "p" points to an integer that cannot be modified through the pointer. In the second case, "p" itself cannot be changed to point to a different integer but the data it points to can be modified.

Therefore, when using constant declarations in C , it is crucial to consider the placement of the "const" keyword, especially when working with pointer types. Understanding these subtle distinctions is essential for writing robust and error-free code.

The above is the detailed content of \"const int\" vs. \"int const\": Does Keyword Placement Matter in C ?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!