this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
291 points (96.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

19623 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 58 points 9 months ago (8 children)

The fact it's a pointer is part of the type, not part of the variable name. So int* p is the way.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 86 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

You would think so, but int* a, b is actually eqivalent to int* a; int b, so the asterisk actually does go with the name. Writing int* a, *b is inconsistent, so int *a, *b is the way to go.

[–] newH0pe@feddit.de 56 points 9 months ago

Yeah, and I'd say that's a design flaw of the language as it is unintuitive behaviour.

[–] Slotos@feddit.nl 38 points 9 months ago (1 children)

When people say “pointers are hard”, they mean “I have no idea where the star goes and now an ampersand is also implicated”.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's the part where you give up and randomly shove/unshove symbols in until the code works.

[–] CanadaPlus 5 points 9 months ago

I've definitely never been guilty of this. /s

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 25 points 9 months ago

While technically true, that's also one of the worst 'features' of the language and I personally consider it a bug in the language. Use two lines and make it clear and correct.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.de 15 points 9 months ago

Don't declare more than 1 pointer per line. This resolves that, badly.

[–] CanadaPlus 8 points 9 months ago

Alright, I'll never, ever write something this way now. Good to know.

[–] ono@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

This is true in C, but not in D.

[–] shami1kemi1@sopuli.xyz 15 points 9 months ago

Then again, at least in C, the mantra is "declaration follows usage". Surely you don't write pointer dereferences as * ptr? Most likely not, you most likely write it as *ptr. The idea behind the int *ptr; syntax is basically that when you do *ptr, you get an int.

And with this idea, stuff like function pointers (int (*f)(void)), arrays of pointers (int *a[10]) versus pointers of arrays (int (*a)[10]) etc. start making sense. It's certainly not the best way to design the syntax, and I'm as much a fan of the Pascal-styled "type follows the identifier" syntax (e.g. let x: number;) as anyone, but the C way does have a rhyme and a reason for the way it is.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
int* i, j

The C syntax is just messed up.

[–] Traister101@lemmy.today 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

It's part of the type yet it's also a unique identifier. That's the whole thing with east or west const. const int * is a ~~immutable~~ mutable pointer that points to ~~mutable~~ immutable memory. int *const is a ~~mutable~~ immutable pointer that points to ~~immutable~~ memory. int const * is the same type as the first example, a ~~immutable~~ mutable pointer that points to ~~mutable~~ immutable memory.

Same stuff applies to references which makes it easier to think of the variable owning the * or & as if you want that pointer or reference to be const it has to go after.

Edit:I am a moron who managed to get it exactly backwards :|

[–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Found the guy that can probably do function pointers!

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I wrote a couple unholy lines of C++ the other day using the ternary conditional operator to select a class member function to be called with a fixed argument.

I think my teammates were too scared to call me out on it.

[–] YaBoyMax@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

It's actually simpler than doing it the "right" way, but I wanted to see how much I could make C++ pretend it was Python.

[–] Traister101@lemmy.today 3 points 9 months ago

Lol yeah. I don't even really write C++ but I sure as shit know a bunch of syntax and junk haha

[–] YaBoyMax@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think you've got it backwards. I learned to read pointer decls from right-to-left, so const int * is a (mutable) pointer to an int which is const while int *const is a const pointer to a (mutable) int.

[–] Traister101@lemmy.today 2 points 9 months ago

Fuck me man that's what I get for writing that just before bed

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 1 points 9 months ago

I always read it right to left and it seems to make sense to me.

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I do this in my code because it looks better and makes more sense...until I decide to declare 2 vars on one line and then I use the very cursed int* a, *b

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 4 points 9 months ago

I just wouldn't do that.

[–] owsei@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

tbh I always think about it as 'p' is a pointer to int

therefore *p is an int

therefore I should call it int *p;

however, of course, you should use what your team prefers. Having good yet inconsistent style is worst than mid consistent style.

[–] ShortFuse@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't code much C++, but then I'd lose alignment with: x = *p; and I feel that would bug me.

I'm looking at Google Style Guide for my next project and it says either is fine, just don't declare more than one per line.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

And yet the default clang formatter gets it wrong.