pinacolada : right, which is why associativeness in this case is one of the points of criticism when talking about c/c++.
this gets especially confusing when prototyping with arrays. when prototyping a function you don''t have to supply names so this : void foo(char) would be a legal prototype and void foo(char s[]) would be, too. but what about void foo(char[]) ??? (it is legal...)
Pointer asterisk placement
quote:Original post by pinacoladaI think they do int[5] array; in Java or C#? I don''t know where, but I have seen it, and sometimes I unconciously typed it like that too and the compiler would usually go wild and spam the output window with at least 10 error messages.
That makes sense, but then the counter-argument to that is arrays. Definitely you would consider "array-ness" to be part of the type of the variable, but the array notation goes after the variable name:
int array[5]
so you can''t always group all the "type" information in one place.
p.s: I wanted to answer your question regarding the array-ness, but after the second thought that it might turn this innocent thread to a neverending debate, I decided not to.
quote:Original post by alnitequote:Original post by pinacoladaI think they do int[5] array; in Java or C#? I don''t know where, but I have seen it, and sometimes I unconciously typed it like that too and the compiler would usually go wild and spam the output window with at least 10 error messages.
That makes sense, but then the counter-argument to that is arrays. Definitely you would consider "array-ness" to be part of the type of the variable, but the array notation goes after the variable name:
int array[5]
so you can''t always group all the "type" information in one place.
p.s: I wanted to answer your question regarding the array-ness, but after the second thought that it might turn this innocent thread to a neverending debate, I decided not to.
I do believe that array-ness ought to be part of the type, it is like that in Java, and I think it ought to work the same way in all C derivatives.
C does not always agree with my preferences. I choose to tolerate that.
yeah, i recently got back to code some stuff in c++, and this is really annoying..
in D, it was so nice.
etc..
and of course int* x; if you needed a ptr..
well well, you can't have everything.
int* x; makes much more sence for anyone who thinks in types, than int *x; does. in C days, int *X did made more sence, it was a design decision. the, for a lot of people, wrong one.
If that's not the help you're after then you're going to have to explain the problem better than what you have. - joanusdmentia
davepermen.net
[edited by - davepermen on March 22, 2004 7:43:56 PM]
in D, it was so nice.
int[SIZE] intArray;int[] dynamicIntArray;char[] charArray; // a stringint[char[]] map; // map<char[],int> a.k.a. std::map<std::string,int> etc..
and of course int* x; if you needed a ptr..
well well, you can't have everything.
int* x; makes much more sence for anyone who thinks in types, than int *x; does. in C days, int *X did made more sence, it was a design decision. the, for a lot of people, wrong one.
If that's not the help you're after then you're going to have to explain the problem better than what you have. - joanusdmentia
davepermen.net
[edited by - davepermen on March 22, 2004 7:43:56 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
