Pointer declarations ...

Quote:

Is int* p; right or is int *p; right? Both are "right" in the sense that both are valid C and C++ and both have exactly the same meaning. As far as the language definitions and the compilers are concerned we could just as well say int*p; or int * p; The choice between int* p; and int *p; is not about right and wrong, but about style and emphasis. C emphasized expressions; declarations were often considered little more than a necessary evil. C++, on the other hand, has a heavy emphasis on types. A `typical C programmer writes int *p; and explains it *p is what is the int emphasizing syntax, and may point to the C (and C++) declaration grammar to argue for the correctness of the style. Indeed, the * binds to the name p in the grammar. A typical C++ programmer writes int* p; and explains it p is a pointer to an int` emphasizing type. Indeed the type of p is int*. I clearly prefer that emphasis and see it as important for using the more advanced parts of C++ well. The critical confusion comes (only) when people try to declare several pointers with a single declaration: int* p, p1; // probable error: p1 is not an int* Placing the * closer to the name does not make this kind of error significantly less likely. int *p, p1; // probable error? Declaring one name per declaration minimizes the problem - in particular when we initialize the variables. People are far less likely to write: int* p = &i int p1 = p; // error: int initialized by int* And if they do, the compiler will complain.

type * pointer_to_type;

Quote:

Original post by SiCrane I recently heard an interesting argument for using the int * pointer method. Neither the int *pointer or int* pointer methods generalize well when you start adding const or volatile qualifiers to the pointer type and/or the pointed to type, especially when you get multiple layers of indirection. e.g: int const * volatile pointer; or even: int * const * const pointer;

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn And I do know of companies/courses that have required one or the other as part of their standardized format.

Quote:

Conversations: The Good, the Bad, and the Deprecated by Jim Hyslop and Herb Sutter: "No. No, no, no. No coding standard worth your time defines such things"

Quote:

Original post by SirLuthor Or mutable. Or auto. Or register. [grin]

Quote:

Original post by AsOne I've seen int * pointer before, but then it sort of looks like you're multiplying something. Makes me wonder why the * symbol was chosen and not something else for pointers.