www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Why * goes before type name?

reply GamblerZG <GamblerZG_member pathlink.com> writes:
I alway wondered why C and C++ have such syntax, and now D implements pointers
in exactly the same way. Why? Pointer is the actual type of variable, just like
int. Shouldn't it be "* int varName;"? Or even better "ptr int varName;". Could
someone explain the rationale behind that asterisk thing?
Jul 07 2005
parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 02:18:00 +0000 (UTC), GamblerZG  
<GamblerZG_member pathlink.com> wrote:


 I alway wondered why C and C++ have such syntax, and now D implements  
 pointers in exactly the same way. Why?


Not quite. D is left associative rather than right associative (I think I  
got that round the right way?).

So, when you write:
   int * p , s;

in D you've written:
   int* p;
   int* s;

as opposed to C/C++ where you've written:
   int* p;
   int  s;

In other words the * is associated with the typename, not the variable  
name in D. The opposite of C/C++.

As such you should get into the habit of writing the * next to the  
typename:
   int* p;

not the variable name:
   int *p;

as is done in C/C++.

(someone correct me if I have this all wrong)


 Pointer is the actual type of variable, just like
 int. Shouldn't it be "* int varName;"? Or even better "ptr int  
 varName;". Could
 someone explain the rationale behind that asterisk thing?


I prefer to think of it as "integer pointer p" AKA "int* p" rather than  
"pointer to integer p" AKA "*int p".

Though now that I look at it, the "*int p" syntax does make it clear the *  
associates with the "int" rather than the "p". I wonder if this new syntax  
has parsing problems? if not...

Regan
Jul 07 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> wrote in message
news:opstkrevzv23k2f5 nrage.netwin.co.nz...

 (someone correct me if I have this all wrong)


Yes, you've got it right.
Jul 08 2005