On Fr, 2017-05-12 at 07:44 +1000, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> 
> Am I the only one here who thinks that e.g. a char pointer should be 
> "char* cp1, cp2" instead of "char *cp1, *cp2"?  I.e. the fundamental
> type is "char*", not "char", and to this day I still write:
> 
>     char*	cp1;
>     char*	cp2;
> 
> etc, which IMHO makes it clear (which is every programmer's duty).
> I used  to write that way in a previous life, and the boss didn't 
> complain.

This view does not work well with more complicated
declarations like "void (*p)(int)". What is the
"fundamental type" here? One could argue that the
real culprit is the list construction, which does
not mix well with C declarations.

Hellwig