Your claim is that "int* a;" is more portable and less confusing.
So I'm asking what "int* a, b;" does to see if you've really thought it through.
What is the type of b given this declaration?
So, given "int* a, b;" what is the type of b?
What's implicit about those declarations?
My point is that because "int* a, b;" has that kind of confusing behavior, it's odd to claim that you chose it because it is the least confusing syntax.
There are many good arguments for it, but least confusing doesn't seem to be one of them. :)
By all means. :)
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Your claim is that "int* a;" is more portable and less confusing.
So I'm asking what "int* a, b;" does to see if you've really thought it through.
What is the type of b given this declaration?
So, given "int* a, b;" what is the type of b?
What's implicit about those declarations?
My point is that because "int* a, b;" has that kind of confusing behavior, it's odd to claim that you chose it because it is the least confusing syntax.
There are many good arguments for it, but least confusing doesn't seem to be one of them. :)
By all means. :)