C + + Should the const be placed before or after the type of _c language

I put it in the front, but it's just a matter of personal preference. "Const T" and "T const" are always allowed, and are equivalent. For example:

  const int a = 1; OK
  int const B = 2;//also OK

I suspect that the first version may be confusing to a handful of programmers (who are more likely to stick to the rules of grammar).

Why? When I invent "const" (the original name is called "ReadOnly" and there is a corresponding "WriteOnly"), I allow it to appear before or after the type, because it does not bring any uncertainty. Pre-standard C and C + + Specify a few (if any) specific order specifications.

I don't remember having any in-depth thoughts or discussions on the sequencing issue at that time. At that time, some of the early adopters--especially me--just liked it:

  const int c = 10;

Looks better than this:

  int const C = 10;

Perhaps I have also been affected by this: in my earliest examples of using "ReadOnly"

  readonly int c = 10;

is more readable than this:

  int readonly C = 10;

The first "const" (c or C + +) code I've created seems to have replaced the "readonly" around the world.

I remember that the choice of grammar was discussed in several people, such as Dennis ritchie--, but I don't remember what language I was leaning towards.

Note In the fixed pointer (const pointer), "const" always appears after "*". For example:

  int *const p1 = q; Fixed pointer
  int const* p2 = q pointing to int variable://pointer to int constant
  int* p3 = q;//pointer to int constant