Re: "const" scalars

[Jim Meyering]

Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Paul Eggert wrote:
>>> I agree with Bruno on this point.  It's hard enough to read C code
>>> without having to wade through all those 'const's on local variables.
>>
>> By "local variables" you must mean "local scalar variables".
>> You wouldn't argue for dropping "const" as a pointer attribute.
>
> Are you thinking of pointers as not being scalars?  In C, scalar
> types include pointer types, see C99 6.2.5: "Arithmetic types and
> pointer types are collectively called scalar types."

Definitely.  I hope that was obvious from the context.  I suppose
a language lawyer would have said "local scalar non-pointer variables".

> (I don't have anything real to add to the discussion, but it's
> good to be careful about vocabulary.)

Thanks.  We're all into nit-picking, after all.