quote:

---

Original post by Gorg

it can be
int* i; //integer pointer
also. If you ever work for a software company, the coding standard is usually that you use int* instead of int because it is clearer

---

Actually, that would make things less clear. When you use ''int *i'' you know that the * goes with the variable name. Using ''int* i'' sounds like all proceeding variables will be of type int*, which isn''t true. IE, ''int* i, j;'' creates a pointer to an integer (i) and a straight integer (j) even though the syntax would lead you to believe otherwise.

BTW, the software companies I''ve worked for have never used the ''int*'' standard. Of course, I''ve only worked for a few so...


- Houdini

quote:

---

Original post by Houdini

Original post by Gorg

it can be
int* i; //integer pointer
also. If you ever work for a software company, the coding standard is usually that you use int* instead of int because it is clearer

---

Actually, that would make things less clear. When you use ''int *i'' you know that the * goes with the variable name. Using ''int* i'' sounds like all proceeding variables will be of type int*, which isn''t true. IE, ''int* i, j;'' creates a pointer to an integer (i) and a straight integer (j) even though the syntax would lead you to believe otherwise.

BTW, the software companies I''ve worked for have never used the ''int*'' standard. Of course, I''ve only worked for a few so…


- Houdini

Yes, but int* i; tells you that the type is int. someone could have written

int *fajbllejl;aj;

reading rapidly, there is a chance that he misses the * and do not know it is a pointer.

But this is useless fight. It doesn''t really matter which notation you use, as long as everybody in your teams follows the same one.