C++ 风格：Stroustrup 的指针星号放置
C++ style: Stroustrup' s placement of pointer asterisks
有谁知道为什么Stroustrup的风格是指针的放置如下？具体来说，Stroustrup 就此事提供了哪些指导？
int* p;
对
int *p;
因为声明多个变量需要在每个变量名称旁边加上星号。这将导致：
int* p, *x;
对
int *p, *x;
在 K&R C 书中，他们解释说 asterisk/pointer 用作助记符以帮助理解。我觉得奇怪的是 pointer/asterisk 与类型相关，而不是变量，如每个示例的第二个所示。有兴趣了解为什么选择第一种样式的背景。
希望在推理中引用 Stroustrup 的话。
我在 K&R C 第二版语法第 235 页中添加了星号（指针）与声明符相关联的位置，它是一个标识符。
回答
在此 article from Stroustrup 关于编码风格。他解释说两者都是有效的，这取决于程序员的偏好。
我不同意这是一个基于意见的问题。 Stroustrup 的文章清楚地回答了这个问题。
我相信 stroustrup 的风格意味着应该避免像这样的变量声明。这似乎也是社区的普遍共识。
我不能代表 Bjarne，但是将星号（和符号在引用的情况下）与类型联系起来是有道理的，因为指针在语义上是变量类型的一部分。变量的名称是 p，类型是 int*。名称不是 *p，类型也不是 int。
几乎总是可以避免在单个声明中声明多个变量，因此这不是问题。
在我看来，这种方法更清晰，尤其是在 return 类型的情况下：
T*
function(Args...);
T
*function(Args...);
C++ 非常重视 类型 并且当谈到指针声明时，为了避免任何形式的混淆，Bjarne 建议 - Stick to one pointer per declaration.
来自 Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ Style and Technique FAQ [强调]:
Is int* p; right or is int *p; right?
Both are "right" in the sense that both are valid C and C++ and both have exactly the same meaning. As far as the language definitions and the compilers are concerned we could just as well say int*p; or int * p;
The choice between int* p; and int *p; is not about right and wrong, but about style and emphasis. C emphasized expressions; declarations were often considered little more than a necessary evil. C++, on the other hand, has a heavy emphasis on types.
A typical C programmer writes int *p; and explains it *p is what is the int emphasizing syntax, and may point to the C (and C++) declaration grammar to argue for the correctness of the style. Indeed, the * binds to the name p in the grammar.
A typical C++ programmer writes int* p; and explains it p is a pointer to an int emphasizing type. Indeed the type of p is int*. I clearly prefer that emphasis and see it as important for using the more advanced parts of C++ well.
The critical confusion comes (only) when people try to declare several pointers with a single declaration:
int* p, p1; // probable error: p1 is not an int*
Placing the * closer to the name does not make this kind of error significantly less likely.
int *p, p1; // probable error?
Declaring one name per declaration minimizes the problem - in particular when we initialize the variables. People are far less likely to write:
int* p = &i;
int p1 = p; // error: int initialized by int*
And if they do, the compiler will complain.
Whenever something can be done in two ways, someone will be confused. Whenever something is a matter of taste, discussions can drag on forever. Stick to one pointer per declaration and always initialize variables and the source of confusion disappears.
See The Design and Evolution of C++ for a longer discussion of the C declaration syntax.
有谁知道为什么Stroustrup的风格是指针的放置如下？具体来说，Stroustrup 就此事提供了哪些指导？
int* p;
对
int *p;
因为声明多个变量需要在每个变量名称旁边加上星号。这将导致：
int* p, *x;
对
int *p, *x;
在 K&R C 书中，他们解释说 asterisk/pointer 用作助记符以帮助理解。我觉得奇怪的是 pointer/asterisk 与类型相关，而不是变量，如每个示例的第二个所示。有兴趣了解为什么选择第一种样式的背景。
希望在推理中引用 Stroustrup 的话。
我在 K&R C 第二版语法第 235 页中添加了星号（指针）与声明符相关联的位置，它是一个标识符。
回答 在此 article from Stroustrup 关于编码风格。他解释说两者都是有效的，这取决于程序员的偏好。
我不同意这是一个基于意见的问题。 Stroustrup 的文章清楚地回答了这个问题。
我相信 stroustrup 的风格意味着应该避免像这样的变量声明。这似乎也是社区的普遍共识。
我不能代表 Bjarne，但是将星号（和符号在引用的情况下）与类型联系起来是有道理的，因为指针在语义上是变量类型的一部分。变量的名称是 p，类型是 int*。名称不是 *p，类型也不是 int。
几乎总是可以避免在单个声明中声明多个变量，因此这不是问题。
在我看来，这种方法更清晰，尤其是在 return 类型的情况下：
T*
function(Args...);
T
*function(Args...);
C++ 非常重视 类型 并且当谈到指针声明时，为了避免任何形式的混淆，Bjarne 建议 - Stick to one pointer per declaration.
来自 Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ Style and Technique FAQ [强调]:
Is
int* p;right or isint *p;right?Both are "right" in the sense that both are valid C and C++ and both have exactly the same meaning. As far as the language definitions and the compilers are concerned we could just as well say
int*p;orint * p;The choice between
int* p;andint *p;is not about right and wrong, but about style and emphasis. C emphasized expressions; declarations were often considered little more than a necessary evil. C++, on the other hand, has a heavy emphasis on types.A
typical C programmerwritesint *p;and explains it*p is what is the intemphasizing syntax, and may point to the C (and C++) declaration grammar to argue for the correctness of the style. Indeed, the*binds to the namepin the grammar.A
typical C++ programmerwritesint* p;and explains itp is a pointer to an intemphasizing type. Indeed the type ofpisint*. I clearly prefer that emphasis and see it as important for using the more advanced parts of C++ well.The critical confusion comes (only) when people try to declare several pointers with a single declaration:
int* p, p1; // probable error: p1 is not an int*Placing the
*closer to the name does not make this kind of error significantly less likely.
int *p, p1; // probable error?Declaring one name per declaration minimizes the problem - in particular when we initialize the variables. People are far less likely to write:
int* p = &i;int p1 = p; // error: int initialized by int*And if they do, the compiler will complain.
Whenever something can be done in two ways, someone will be confused. Whenever something is a matter of taste, discussions can drag on forever. Stick to one pointer per declaration and always initialize variables and the source of confusion disappears.See The Design and Evolution of C++ for a longer discussion of the C declaration syntax.