const int vs. int const as function parameter in C++ and C


Quick question:

int testfunc1 (const int a)
  return a;

int testfunc2 (int const a)
  return a;

Are these two functions the same in every aspect or is there a difference? I'm interested in an answer for the C-language, but if there is something interesting in the C++ language, I'd like to know as well.

7/30/2018 3:01:35 AM

Accepted Answer

const T and T const are identical. With pointer types it becomes more complicated:

  1. const char* is a pointer to a constant char
  2. char const* is a pointer to a constant char
  3. char* const is a constant pointer to a (mutable) char

In other words, (1) and (2) are identical. The only way of making the pointer (rather than the pointee) const is to use a suffix-const.

This is why many people prefer to always put const to the right side of the type (“East const” style): it makes its location relative to the type consistent and easy to remember (it also anecdotally seems to make it easier to teach to beginners).

5/30/2018 11:04:18 AM

The trick is to read the declaration backwards (right-to-left):

const int a = 1; // read as "a is an integer which is constant"
int const a = 1; // read as "a is a constant integer"

Both are the same thing. Therefore:

a = 2; // Can't do because a is constant

The reading backwards trick especially comes in handy when you're dealing with more complex declarations such as:

const char *s;      // read as "s is a pointer to a char that is constant"
char c;
char *const t = &c; // read as "t is a constant pointer to a char"

*s = 'A'; // Can't do because the char is constant
s++;      // Can do because the pointer isn't constant
*t = 'A'; // Can do because the char isn't constant
t++;      // Can't do because the pointer is constant

Licensed under: CC-BY-SA with attribution
Not affiliated with: Stack Overflow