12 May
2017
12 May
'17
6:24 a.m.
On Fr, 2017-05-12 at 07:44 +1000, Dave Horsfall wrote:
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.
This view does not work well with more complicated
declarations like "void (*p)(int)". What is the
"fundamental type" here? One could argue that the
real culprit is the list construction, which does
not mix well with C declarations.
Hellwig