11 May
2017
11 May
'17
9:44 p.m.
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Michael Kjörling wrote:
On the flip side, it certainly does beat `char* x, y,
z[100];` or `FILE*
fpsrc, fpdst;`. I wonder how many aspiring C programmers have been
tripped up by constructs like those? It's perfectly reasonable _once you
know about it_, but if you don't, then, well...
Am I the only one here who thinks that e.g. a char pointer should be
"char* cp1, cp2" instead of "char *cp1, *cp2"? I.e. the fundamental
type
is "char*", not "char", and to this day I still write:
char* cp1;
char* cp2;
etc, which IMHO makes it clear (which is every programmer's duty). I used
to write that way in a previous life, and the boss didn't complain.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."