i typically use: int *i; & void swap(int &a, int &b) BUT in my book it says that Stroustrup introduced this other style and many people adopted it: int* i ; & void swap(int& a, int& b) i know there is no difference..but a matter of style....but what do you like to use and why?

I tend to use int *i;

Makes it easier to read if i have more on a single line like so:

char *t, m;

much simpler to read than:

char* t, m;

The second one makes it looks like both are going to be pointers, while only the first one will be. It''s the variable that is getting assigned to be a pointer, not the "type", so why would you "attach" the * or & to the type, and not the variable? It just makes things confusing, where if you attached it to the variable name, there is no confusion.

Billy - BillyB@mrsnj.com

I totally agree with the AP. It just doesn''t make sense to do it the other way (at least to me anyway).

i prefer "int *i".

however with references i do the opposite; i.e. "const String& s".

To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.

int *i

i is the pointer. The int is just the type the pointer points to.

Edited by - granat on January 11, 2002 1:53:46 PM

I usually use

int* i;

and

void afunction(int& one, int& two);

For me it is easier to read that way.
I usually don't do stuff like

int *i, m; Because to me thats just confusing to a reader
no matter how you do it.

EDIT: The reason I do that is because I read them as "___ a pointer to a ____" So in this case, "i is a pointer to an int".

Edited by - xgalaxy on January 11, 2002 1:58:28 PM

I do "int* i" because the type of the variable ''i'' is ''int*''. Same for references.

I don''t do "char* i, m". I do "char* i; char m;" because ''i'' and ''m'' do not have the same type.

The identation of brackets is just a matter of taste. But as for * I think there is more than just taste because it defines the type of the var so it must not be confusing with other variables.

----------------
Blaster
Computer game programmer and part time human being
Strategy First - http://www.strategyfirst.com
BlasterSoft - http://www.blastersoft.com

Definitely int *i. As mentioned above, the ''*'' is a property of the variable, not of the type. If you want an abstracted pointer type, you can still create something like MS''s LPxxx stuff. But writing int* blah is just confusing.

- AH

I don't think the '*' makes the property of anything. Doing 'int* i;' and 'int i;" make two variables of two different types.

What do you do with functions that return pointers? I put the '*' beside the 'char' because that's the type of the variable the function returns. Putting the '*' beside the function name doesn't seem good and according to the last AP the '*' would then be a property of the function or something.

I have read some people make a difference when writing the return type of a function and the type of a variable (when they are pointers). I don't see any difference, so I write them the same way.

EDIT - we must not let this thread become a war, so I will stop posting my tastes/opinions.

----------------
Blaster
Computer game programmer and part time human being
Strategy First - http://www.strategyfirst.com
BlasterSoft - http://www.blastersoft.com

Edited by - Blaster on January 11, 2002 2:14:22 PM

I use "int* p" because p is an "int*".

Stroustrup also stresses one declaration per line so things like "int* p, i" would never happen if you always follow his style recommendations.