Volatile binding for const?

[Henry Spencer]

In article <1989Mar29.210035.4085 at utzoo.uucp> I wrote:
>>	char const *s, *t;	=is=>  {char const *} s, t
>>	char *const s, *t;	=is=>  char {const *s}, *t
>>
>... (Both declare "t" to be pointer to const char.)

Oops.  Talk about blunders.  I got the important part, about "s", right,
but botched "t".  The first declaration declares t to be pointer to const
char.  The second declares it to be pointer to char.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry at zoo.toronto.edu