Functions returning pointers

[JS]

If I have a function that looks like this:

char *alloc(int n)
{
....
return allocp - n;

}

I guess the "*" in the first line of the function belongs to "char" and not
the name of the function. "char *"....not "*alloc". Right?

JS

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* JS:

If I have a function that looks like this:

char *alloc(int n)
{
....
return allocp - n;

}

I guess the "*" in the first line of the function belongs to "char" and not
the name of the function. "char *"....not "*alloc". Right?

Yes.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Ioannis Vranos]

JS wrote:

If I have a function that looks like this:

char *alloc(int n)
{
....
return allocp - n;

}

I guess the "*" in the first line of the function belongs to "char" and not
the name of the function. "char *"....not "*alloc". Right?

Right.
--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[HappyHippy]

"JS" <sf****@asdas.com> wrote in message
news:d1**********@news.net.uni-c.dk...

If I have a function that looks like this:

char *alloc(int n)
{
....
return allocp - n;

}

I guess the "*" in the first line of the function belongs to "char" and
not
the name of the function. "char *"....not "*alloc". Right?

JS

Yes, you are right, * belongs to the return type (char).

[Victor Bazarov]

JS wrote:

If I have a function that looks like this:

char *alloc(int n)
{
....
return allocp - n;

}

I guess the "*" in the first line of the function belongs to "char" and not
the name of the function. "char *"....not "*alloc". Right?

Right. An asterisk cannot be part of a name. It says that the function
'alloc' returns a pointer to char.

V

[JS]

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mx*******************@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.t o.verio.net...

JS wrote:

If I have a function that looks like this:

char *alloc(int n)
{
....
return allocp - n;

}

I guess the "*" in the first line of the function belongs to "char" and not the name of the function. "char *"....not "*alloc". Right?

Right. An asterisk cannot be part of a name. It says that the function
'alloc' returns a pointer to char.

V

Just a bit misleading because of the missing blank followed by the "*".
Would seem a bit more clear if one wrote:

char * alloc(int n)

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

JS wrote:

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mx*******************@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.t o.verio.net...

JS wrote:

If I have a function that looks like this:

char *alloc(int n)
{
....
return allocp - n;

}

I guess the "*" in the first line of the function belongs to "char" and not the name of the function. "char *"....not "*alloc". Right?

Right. An asterisk cannot be part of a name. It says that the function
'alloc' returns a pointer to char.

V

Just a bit misleading because of the missing blank followed by the "*".
Would seem a bit more clear if one wrote:

char * alloc(int n)

It is the same as
2+3

you can write it any way you want
2+ 3
2 +3
2 + 3

it always means the same thing: the addition of 2 and 3

There is a possible pitfall with that pointer-'*' however:
Actually the situation is this:
The '*' belongs more to the thing on its right then to the thing
on its left. In case of function return types this makes no difference.
But consider:

int* i, j;

What does this define?
Well. It defines a pointer variable named 'i' and (surprise) it defines
an int variable named 'j'. Note: 'j' is an int (!) not a pointer to int (!).
That's why most C programmers prefer to write

int *i, j;

to make this clear without any doubt.

In C++ much less pointers are used, and most programmers agree, that there
should be only one variable defined in each definition, thus a C++ programmer
would write:

int *i;
int j;

and now the whitespace can easily be moved to the data type without fooling
anybody:

int* i;
int j;

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad.at

[JS]

"Karl Heinz Buchegger" <kb******@gascad.at> skrev i en meddelelse
news:42***************@gascad.at...

JS wrote:

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mx*******************@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.t o.verio.net...

JS wrote:
> If I have a function that looks like this:
>
>
>
> char *alloc(int n)
> {
> ....
> return allocp - n;
>
> }
>
> I guess the "*" in the first line of the function belongs to "char" and

not

> the name of the function. "char *"....not "*alloc". Right?

Right. An asterisk cannot be part of a name. It says that the

function 'alloc' returns a pointer to char.

V

Just a bit misleading because of the missing blank followed by the "*".
Would seem a bit more clear if one wrote:

char * alloc(int n)

It is the same as
2+3

you can write it any way you want
2+ 3
2 +3
2 + 3

it always means the same thing: the addition of 2 and 3

There is a possible pitfall with that pointer-'*' however:
Actually the situation is this:
The '*' belongs more to the thing on its right then to the thing
on its left. In case of function return types this makes no difference.

but in this function:

char *alloc(int n)

it belongs to the left.....right?

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

JS wrote:

"Karl Heinz Buchegger" <kb******@gascad.at> skrev i en meddelelse
news:42***************@gascad.at...

JS wrote:

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mx*******************@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.t o.verio.net...
> JS wrote:
> > If I have a function that looks like this:
> >
> >
> >
> > char *alloc(int n)
> > {
> > ....
> > return allocp - n;
> >
> > }
> >
> > I guess the "*" in the first line of the function belongs to "char" and not
> > the name of the function. "char *"....not "*alloc". Right?
>
> Right. An asterisk cannot be part of a name. It says that the function > 'alloc' returns a pointer to char.
>
> V

Just a bit misleading because of the missing blank followed by the "*".
Would seem a bit more clear if one wrote:

char * alloc(int n)

It is the same as
2+3

you can write it any way you want
2+ 3
2 +3
2 + 3

it always means the same thing: the addition of 2 and 3

There is a possible pitfall with that pointer-'*' however:
Actually the situation is this:
The '*' belongs more to the thing on its right then to the thing
on its left. In case of function return types this makes no difference.

but in this function:

char *alloc(int n)

it belongs to the left.....right?

If it is your understanding that alloc() returns a pointer, in particlar
a character pointer, then yes.
--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad.at

[Ioannis Vranos]

JS wrote:

but in this function:

char *alloc(int n)

it belongs to the left.....right?

Yes. There is no such ambiguity in the language. No identifier (name) is
permitted to contain character '*'.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys