I know this is a stupid question but it there any difference between:
type* identifer;
and
type * identifer;
and
type *identifer;
or is it just whitespace?
I know this is a stupid question but it there any difference between:
type* identifer;
and
type * identifer;
and
type *identifer;
or is it just whitespace?
Just whitespace.
[edit]But someone will come along and also note this:
http://c-faq.com/decl/charstarws.html, which also links to
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#whitespace
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
I like keeping the pointer next to the type just because it's a pointer to a type.
Thanks, I've been looking through some code (quite large examples) and it was scattered about both ways.
I guessed it was because different people coded different parts but I was just checking thank you.
putting * near the type confuses readers.
eg:[code]
int* ptr, normalvaraible; //here only ptr is a pointer if I'm correct...
int *ptr, normalvaraible; // here it is clearer ???
I tend to put spaces on both sides of the "*".
But it really is all about personal preference.
Yes, I agree with you. Supporting for the first style seems not very persuadable (just my opinion).Originally Posted by arjunajay
true, when you are coding for yourself, personal preference is all that matters.Originally Posted by Ari.Patrick
false, when you are part of a development team, then you have to follow the coding standard adopted by that team, and if they choose int *ptr then you have to code it int *ptr, not as int* ptr or int * ptr.
and Dave,
there isn't actually any such thing as a stupid question. there are questions that are asked in a stupid way, but your question doesn't fall into that grouping either.
Originally Posted by Jeff Henager