[jcelerier]

> Well... the declaration you cited resolves down to a pointer to a wide integer

With a boatload of associated semantics, quite a bunch bein in practice compiler-dependent (looking at you, MSVC volatile).

And a "protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor" does not mean anything -- or at least any code that compiles.

[saagarjha]

> With a boatload of associated semantics, quite a bunch bein in practice compiler-dependent (looking at you, MSVC volatile).

Which is not part of C. Your argument that "C is complicated" doesn't work if you cite an egregious misuse of nonstandard extensions.

[3chelon]

Forgive my ignorance here, I'm genuinely intrigued: what's so special about MSVC's volatile as opposed to the regular volatile keyword?