I think you just need to read right to left?

"const int * foo" means that foo is a pointer to an int that is constant.

Which could also be "int const * foo" foo is a pointer to a constant int.

But since the const qualifier for pointers can't be reordered like this, I think the point is that it's a better practice to have the const come after, so that it ALWAYS come after in your codebase regardless of the context?

Thanks for the explanation. I meant it mostly facetiously, but my more serious point is that there are some parts of some languages (and APIs and tools and architectures) where the answer you get from experienced practitioners is "think harder". It's not that I can't grok it, it's that it takes more effort than it should given how much the concept comes up, and the more I wrestle with my tools, the less I potentially get done.

C++ rvalue references are a great example. Whenever I see them I have to go back and relearn the concept because accounting for the language feature sometimes feels more complicated to get right than the unsafe pointer chucking it replaced.

I think it was needed for operator overloading.