On Fri, 12 May 2017, Hellwig Geisse wrote:

> >     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.

Let's see:

    aneurin% cdecl
    Type `help' or `?' for help
    explain void (*p)(int)
    declare p as pointer to function (int) returning void

So the "fundamental" type (if there was such a thing) would be a pointer 
to a function, I guess i.e. don't treat it as anything else.

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