• ParticlePeter (6/6) May 09 2015 Hi,
• Adam D. Ruppe (4/4) May 09 2015 The second const isn't needed in D, the first one will carry
• ParticlePeter (1/1) May 09 2015 That was fast, thanks :-)
• =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= (16/17) May 09 2015 Disecting:

"ParticlePeter" <ParticlePeter gmx.de> writes:

Hi,

const char *const* someConstPtr;
Error: no identifier for declarator char*
Error: declaration expected, not '*'

How would I translate this properly to d?

Cheers, PP

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

The second const isn't needed in D, the first one will carry 
through for it too.

const char* in D is equivalent to that C declaration.

const(char)* in D is what const char* in C would be.

"ParticlePeter" <ParticlePeter gmx.de> writes:

That was fast, thanks :-)

=?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 05/09/2015 04:18 PM, ParticlePeter wrote:

 const char *const* someConstPtr;

Disecting:

1) const char : There are these chars that cannot be modified

2) * : There are these pointers to such const chars.

3) const: Those pointers cannot point to anything else

4) * : There are these pointers that can point to previously described 
pointers.

The following are the D equivalents, adding more at each step:

1) const(char)

2) const(char)*

3) const(const(char)*)

4) const(const(char)*)*

As Adam Ruppe said, the first const (the inner-most in the D version) is 
redundant:

   const(char*)*

Ali