static and volatile qualifiers after type <p>Bjarne explains why const can go either before or after a type.</p> <p><a href="http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq2.html#constplacement" rel="nofollow">http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq2.html#constplacement</a></p> <blockquote> <pre><code>"const T" and "T const" were - and are - (both) allowed and equivalent. [...] </code></pre> <p>Why? When I invented "const" (initially named "readonly" and had a corresponding "writeonly"), I allowed it to go before or after the type because I could do so without ambiguity.</p> </blockquote> <p>My immediate thought was, "Ok, that makes sense, but if that's the reason then why is const special?" Apparently it isn't. Both clang and gcc emit no warnings for the following.</p> <pre><code>int volatile myint; int static myotherint; </code></pre> <p>It makes sense that this would be valid but I've never seen this syntax used or even mentioned as a possibility. Is placing static and volatile qualifiers after a type valid C++?</p> <p><em>How would one determine this from the text of the Standard?</em></p>