From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dave@horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 07:44:32 +1000 (EST) Subject: [TUHS] The evolution of Unix facilities and architecture In-Reply-To: <20170511171100.GA9980@yeono.kjorling.se> References: <20170511140729.2262B18C09A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20170511142142.GA4341@mcvoy.com> <20170511171100.GA9980@yeono.kjorling.se> Message-ID: 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."