12 May
2017
12 May
'17
4:01 a.m.
But wouldn't that imply you didn't need to use the * when referencing
the actual value?
For example, if you do this:
char *p;
char c;
The correct way to get the character it's pointing to dereference like this:
c=*p;
If the type was char* (not char)
Wouldn't that imply I wouldn't need the * to dereference the pointer?
On 5/11/2017 5:49 PM, Ron Natalie wrote:
Bjarne agrees with you. He put the * (and the &)
with the type name to emphasize it is part of the type.
This works fine as long as you only use one declaration per statement.
The problem with that is that * doesn't really bind to the type name. It binds to
the variable.
char* cp1, cp2; // cp1 is pointer to char, cp2 is just a char.
I always found it confusing that the * is used to indicate an pointer here, where as when
you want to change an lvalue to a pointer, you use &.
But if we're going to gripe about the evolution of C. My biggest gripe is when
they fixed structs to be real types, they didn't also do so for arrays.
Arrays and their degeneration to poitners is one of the biggest annoyances in C.
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: