5 ms·

Anytime I write C code, I try to keep the asterisk close to the type: void* foo(void* bar); I know that the asterisk technically belongs with the variable nam

Anytime I write C code, I try to keep the asterisk close to the type: void* foo(void* bar); I know that the asterisk technically belongs with the variable name when declaring it, but it helps to wrap my head around them, as a reminder that they're a pointer type.

sigjuice 9y ago
The world mostly does it the other way. A couple of code examples: https://github.com/apache/httpd/blob/trunk/server/provider.c https://github.com/apache/httpd/blob/trunk/server/provider.c https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/fork.c https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.... Almost all documentation, references and literature: Here are a couple of man pages. http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/gethostbyname.3.html http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/gethostbyname.3.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man3/execv.3.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin... Here is a draft of the ISO C standard: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf
- ngcc_hk 9y ago
  I agree you based on fact that more in code we use void *s = then use it as s= But I agree more that the void* s = then use it as s= Is more understandable as the first set confuse me when I learn pointer. It still does. void* is a type like statement. And void is like a return type statement.
  - millstone 9y ago
    This totally destroyed me when I was learning C. The theory was: int *foo; makes more sense, because to access the int, you write: *foo = ...; But that's not an int, it's a crash! If you want an int, you have to make one. Placing the asterisk next to the type made it all click for me.
    - Y_Y 9y ago
      double foo; compute(foo); That's not even a crash, just silent garbage. I don't know how you expect to do better with an uninitialised variable (except ints that default to 0). foo dereferences to an int, but what could you hope to happen if you never gave it some memory to point to?
  - jcelerier 9y ago
    The only thing that sucks hard is when you do : int* s1, s2; here s2 is an int, not an int* and you have to do int* s1, *s2; this is braindead imho
    - megaman22 9y ago
      As long as you're not using prehistoric versions if C, you don't have to define all variables up front, so there is much less justifiable reasons for that kind of multiple declaration.
      - Koshkin 9y ago
        Except nothing will save you from the "one true way to write C" when you try to write a declaration of a pointer to a function, for example.
        jcelerier 9y ago
        yep, I prefer the c++ way by far : using foo = void(int, float);
        sigjuice 9y ago
        You can adjust your function pointer typedefs if you like. e.g. signal(2) http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/signal.2.html http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/signal.2.html typedef void (*sighandler_t)(int); sighandler_t signal(int signum, sighandler_t handler); can be rewritten as typedef void sighandler_t(int); sighandler_t *signal(int signum, sighandler_t *handler);

sigjuice 9y ago

The world mostly does it the other way. A couple of code examples: https://github.com/apache/httpd/blob/trunk/server/provider.c https://github.com/apache/httpd/blob/trunk/server/provider.c https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/fork.c https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.... Almost all documentation, references and literature: Here are a couple of man pages. http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/gethostbyname.3.html http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/gethostbyname.3.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man3/execv.3.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin... Here is a draft of the ISO C standard: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf

ngcc_hk 9y ago
I agree you based on fact that more in code we use void *s = then use it as s= But I agree more that the void* s = then use it as s= Is more understandable as the first set confuse me when I learn pointer. It still does. void* is a type like statement. And void is like a return type statement.
- millstone 9y ago
  This totally destroyed me when I was learning C. The theory was: int *foo; makes more sense, because to access the int, you write: *foo = ...; But that's not an int, it's a crash! If you want an int, you have to make one. Placing the asterisk next to the type made it all click for me.
  - Y_Y 9y ago
    double foo; compute(foo); That's not even a crash, just silent garbage. I don't know how you expect to do better with an uninitialised variable (except ints that default to 0). foo dereferences to an int, but what could you hope to happen if you never gave it some memory to point to?
- jcelerier 9y ago
  The only thing that sucks hard is when you do : int* s1, s2; here s2 is an int, not an int* and you have to do int* s1, *s2; this is braindead imho
  - megaman22 9y ago
    As long as you're not using prehistoric versions if C, you don't have to define all variables up front, so there is much less justifiable reasons for that kind of multiple declaration.
    - Koshkin 9y ago
      Except nothing will save you from the "one true way to write C" when you try to write a declaration of a pointer to a function, for example.
      - jcelerier 9y ago
        yep, I prefer the c++ way by far : using foo = void(int, float);
      - sigjuice 9y ago
        You can adjust your function pointer typedefs if you like. e.g. signal(2) http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/signal.2.html http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/signal.2.html typedef void (*sighandler_t)(int); sighandler_t signal(int signum, sighandler_t handler); can be rewritten as typedef void sighandler_t(int); sighandler_t *signal(int signum, sighandler_t *handler);