C++ Style Question

[Richard Andrew x64]

If this is really a programming question, I'll move it, but I don't consider it such. I'm trying to work out where to place the asterisk when declaring a pointer variable. Do you think the asterisk belongs next to the type name or the variable name?

CType* Pointer = NULL;

vs.

CType *Pointer = NULL;

[M dHatter]

Depends on which one is male and which one is female :laugh: ...asterisk

"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein

modified on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:51 PM

[Christian Graus]

CType * pointer = NULL;

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp

[Joe Woodbury]

I prefer the first because it groups the description of the type and the variable name separately.

Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

[Nemanja Trifunovic]

I use the former style, mostly because I learned C++ from the Stroustrup's book, and that's what he does. BTW, there is another style you didn't mention:

CType * Pointer = NULL;

Programming Blog utf8-cpp

[Nish Nishant]

For single variable declarations I'd do :

int* p1;
int* p2;

But for multiple variables this may result in confusion, for example :

int* p1, p2;

There, p1 is an int* but p2 is actually an int. So in such cases I'd write :

int *p1, *p2;

Of course as far as possible I would avoid multiple variable declarations. That's just not my style.

Regards, Nish

---

Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link

[Lost User]

I prefer the first. Same with references:

Object& obj = someFunc();

as opposed to:

Object &obj = someFunc();

[Chris Losinger]

i always use the 2nd, out of habit. the first would be clearer except you can do this:

CType* ptr, nonPtr;

but the * doesn't apply to all items in the var list. therefore it's not really part of the type, it's really tied to the individual variable. but that's not why i don't use it.

image processing toolkits | batch image processing

[0x3c0]

I prefer the latter, because in my mind, Pointer is already a CType. The asterisk simply adds the notice that the variable just points to a CType, instead of actually being the CType. Plus, it looks a little neater

Between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act Falls the Shadow

[Hans Dietrich]

What if you wanted to declare both a non-pointer and a pointer to CType on the same line? [Not something I favor, but nevertheless legal]. In other words, take the two lines

CType* v1;
CType v2;

and combine them into one line. If you wrote the one line like this:

CType* v1, v2; // only v1 is pointer

I think it would be natural (and also incorrect) to think that both v1 and v2 were pointers to CType, whereas if you always associate the dereference operator with the variable, this confusion may be minimized:

CType *v1, v2; // only v1 is pointer

Best wishes, Hans

---

[Hans Dietrich Software]

[Dan Neely]

I've been burned by multiple declarations enough that I always put the * on the variable name for clarity.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

[Single Step Debugger]

I call this style the “MindChanger”.

The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

[kinar]

this is how I do it.

[Single Step Debugger]

I prefer the second declaration – asterisk next to the variable name for both primitives and objects. The reason is that I very much like the pointers and I don’t want to insult them giving their asterisk to the type. :)

The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

[PIEBALDconsult]

I prefer the first because it expresses the intent more clearly, but it's "incorrect" for the reason mentioned by others. It's because of this that I never declare multiple variables in one statement. Another thing I'll need to discuss with dmr when I get my time machine working... :~

[Richard Andrew x64]

You've directly hit upon my dilemma. The multiple declaration exposes the fact that the asterisk is an attribute of the variable, not the type proper. However, in a single declaration, it somehow makes a lot of sense to indicate that you're declaring a type-pointer. :confused:

[Big Daddy Farang]

Nishant Sivakumar wrote:

avoid multiple variable declarations

Dr. Plum and I agree. :)

BDF People don't mind being mean; but they never want to be ridiculous. -- Moliere

[Big Daddy Farang]

What I was taught in my first C++ class is:

CType* Pointer = NULL; // proper style for C++

CType *Pointer = NULL; // proper style for C

Although this may be the instructor's opinion. It's what I've been doing ever since, however.

BDF People don't mind being mean; but they never want to be ridiculous. -- Moliere

[Kevin McFarlane]

First for same reason as Joe Woodbury.

Kevin

[Kevin McFarlane]

Ditto.

Kevin