type* name vs. type *name

[Sergei Gnezdov]

I'd think that

type* pointerName

is more descriptive, than

type *pointerName

After all, we define a type pointer, not the pointer by itself.

[Peter MacMillan]

Sergei Gnezdov wrote:

I'd think that

type* pointerName

is more descriptive, than

type *pointerName

After all, we define a type pointer, not the pointer by itself.

You might want to take a look at:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#whitespace

Which certainly aggrees that type* name is preferable to type *name -
but it ultimatly comes down to preference as both are valid.

--
Peter MacMillan
e-mail/msn: pe***@writeopen.com
icq: 1-874-927

GCS/IT/L d-(-)>-pu s():(-) a- C+++(++++)>$ UL>$ P++ L+ E-(-) W++(+++)>$
N o w++>$ O !M- V PS PE Y+ t++ 5 X R* tv- b++(+) DI D+(++)>$ G e++ h r--
y(--)

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <Av********************@rogers.com>,
Peter MacMillan <pe***@writeopen.com> wrote:
....

You might want to take a look at:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#whitespace

Which certainly aggrees that type* name is preferable to type *name -
but it ultimatly comes down to preference as both are valid.

The problem with: type* name;
is that you might be confused by: type* name1,name2;

[Jack Klein]

On 29 Mar 2005 04:00:17 GMT, Sergei Gnezdov <us**********@gnezdov.net>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

I'd think that

type* pointerName

is more descriptive, than

type *pointerName

After all, we define a type pointer, not the pointer by itself.

Why should we care what you think? What qualifications do you have
that we should give weight to your opinion?

The original C style came from Dennis Ritchie's decision several
decades ago that declaration syntax should imitate use.

Given:

int *ip;

....then given proper initialization, the expression:

*ip

....is indeed an int.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Keith Thompson]

Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> writes:

On 29 Mar 2005 04:00:17 GMT, Sergei Gnezdov <us**********@gnezdov.net>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

I'd think that

type* pointerName

is more descriptive, than

type *pointerName

After all, we define a type pointer, not the pointer by itself.
Why should we care what you think? What qualifications do you have
that we should give weight to your opinion?

Isn't that a bit harsh? C's declaration syntax, and the conventions
that go with it, are pretty counterintuitive until you understand the
reasoning behind them.
The original C style came from Dennis Ritchie's decision several
decades ago that declaration syntax should imitate use.

Given:

int *ip;

...then given proper initialization, the expression:

*ip

...is indeed an int.

Agreed. Your followup would have been a good one with that one
paragraph deleted.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Gordon Burditt]

>I'd think that

type* pointerName
is more descriptive, than
type *pointerName
After all, we define a type pointer, not the pointer by itself.

This works until you try to declare more than one of them in
the same declaration.

type* p1, p2;

It looks like p1 and p2 are the same type, doesn't it? They're
not. Now the form you think is more descriptive is more misleading.

Gordon L. Burditt