11 May
2017
11 May
'17
10:06 p.m.
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Michael Kjörling wrote:
I've encountered several people with that world view, so you aren't
alone. I take a contrary view. Since C doesn't behave that way, it
encourages people to think that char* cp1, cp2 is equivalent to what
you wrote, which it's not. * is a modifier of char rather than char *
being a fundamental type. Been burned too many times by it I guess
over the years.
Warner
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.