4 ms·
Because in the C (and C++) grammar, int *a, b; declares a pointer-to-int `a` and an int `b`, rather than two pointers-to-int. The better solution to this
by stephencanon 6y ago
Because in the C (and C++) grammar,
int *a, b;
declares a pointer-to-int `a` and an int `b`, rather than two pointers-to-int. The better solution to this problem is "don't do that", but C (and C++) programmers have a fetish for terseness.
- secondcoming 6y ago> but C (and C++) programmers have a fetish for terseness. Indeed, Linus Torvalds has a recent rant about people still adhering to max 80-column width code. It's pointless in the day of massive monitors.
- qppo 6y agoI use a rather large 4K monitor as my daily driver and maintain 80 column width code where possible, to avoid wraparound when I have many windows open. It's not pointless unless you're using your massive monitor like you did your tiny one thirty years ago. I use mine like a bunch of tiny monitors, not one big one.