C++ Style Question
-
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;
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.
-
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;
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... :~
-
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 linkYou'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:
-
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 linkNishant 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
-
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;
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
-
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;
First for same reason as Joe Woodbury.
Kevin
-
I prefer the first. Same with references:
Object& obj = someFunc();
as opposed to:
Object &obj = someFunc();
Ditto.
Kevin
-
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;
You can solve the problem by dropping the space. More seriously, putting more than one variable in the declaration (one pointer, one not) should show the way to do it. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.
-
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
Ditto. The second one always looks like a dereference to me - which it isn't.
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Tech Blog | Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
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 linkI avoid multiple pointer declarations on the same line as I always initialise them (never leave them dangling):
int* p1 = NULL;
int* p2 = NULL;Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Tech Blog | Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
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;
I prefer the first one's aesthetics - but it can hide the way C type-decls are actually decoded, and as Nish said, the multiple item declaration thing is an issue. The other alternative, of course, is to encapsulate the pointer-ness in a typedef:
typedef CType* CTypePtr;
CTypePtr Pointer = NULL;Helps especially with function pointers - which is easier to understand:
int (*myFn)(double, int);
or
typedef int (*MyFnPtr)(double, int);
MyFnPtr myFn;
? I guess some amount of the SPARK Ada development I've done (SPARK doesn't allow anonymous type defs) has rubbed off on me. Who'da thunk it...
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
-
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
-
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;
-
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;
Alternative 1, with a slight twitch
CType* Pointer(0);
rgds *I don't do multiple variable declarations*/Jonas
-
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;
Depends on where you want the emphasis to be. Personally, I prefer the
CType* Pointer
It reads more clearly that the variable Pointer is of "pointer type." It does mean though that it is difficult to declare multiple variables on a single line, but frankly, I think it is better style to only declare a single variable per line. The typedef mentioned in a previous post is very neat. I've used this a few times, it's even better at showing the "pointer type." If you can, prefer this.
-
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
Likewise.
-
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;
Personally I prefer the first option:
int* aIt doesn't look like I'm trying to dereference an existing variable that way and I think it makes it easier to read. Also I avoid writing multiple definitions on the same line, again it makes it easier to read in my opinion and it means that I don't have to change my coding style for pointer declaration. -
Wrong! It's a modifier for the variable like const. which is why you put it with the variable, not the data type.
-
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;
C/C++ was my first introduction to programming years after some dabbling in Sinclair Basic. This was before Google, and even before ready access, for me, to forums etc. and for a long time, I thought there was a difference.
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you. - John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
-
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.
I couldn't have explained it better. I like to consider the asterisk as a modifier to the type. It does actually belong neither to the type, nor to the variable. Its name is ptr and not *ptr. Another example is:
int i = 123;
int &j = i;It becomes even more unclear if you consider &j as the variable name. Eventually, an alternate way to consider it is with parenthesis:
CType (*ptr), nonPtr;
