On Thu, 11 May 2017, Michael Kjörling wrote:

> On the flip side, it certainly does beat `char* x, y, z[100];` or `FILE* 
> fpsrc, fpdst;`. I wonder how many aspiring C programmers have been 
> tripped up by constructs like those? It's perfectly reasonable _once you 
> know about it_, but if you don't, then, well...

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.

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."