Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsd!tainter
From: tainter@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (johnathan.tainter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: type *var -- vs. -- type* var
Message-ID: <1688@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Sep 89 23:45:53 GMT
References: <12813@pur-ee.UUCP>
Reply-To: tainter@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (johnathan.tainter,ih,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23

In article <12813@pur-ee.UUCP> lewie@ecn-ee.UUCP writes:
>Regarding declarations of pointers x, y and z, and question of why
>'int* x, y, z' doesn't do what's 'intuitive':
>>	(int *) x, y, z
>'(int *) x' is a cast, not a declaration.  Compiling the above yields
>errors about x, y and z being undeclared.  Because there's no explicit
>separator between declarations and statements, you'll never be able
>to declare pointers as such.  Isn't C syntax fun?

This is a place where typedef is not equivalent to a macro.

typedef int *Pointer_to_int;
Pointer_to_int x, y, z;

does exactly what was desired with only one side effect, it defines
a typedef.  Don't try and use a screwdriver as a chisel, especially when
you already have the chisel.

>Jeff Lewis (lewie@ee.ecn.purdue.edu, pur-ee!lewie)

--johnathan.a.tainter--
   att!ihlpb!tainter