What makes more sense - char* string or char *string?

Question

Duplicate of this question.

I'm learning C++ at the moment, and I'm coming across a lot of null-terminated strings. This has got me thinking, what makes more sense when declaring pointers:

char* string

or

char *string

? To me, the char* format makes more sense, because the type of "string" is a pointer to a char, rather than a char. However, I generally see the latter format. This applies to references as well, obviously.

Could someone tell me if there is a logical reason for the latter format?

Answer 1

In the following declaration:

char* string1, string2;

string1 is a character pointer, but string2 is a single character only. For this reason, the declaration is usually formatted like:

char *string1, string2;

which makes it slightly clearer that the * applies to string1 but not string2. Good practice is to avoid declaring multiple variables in one declaration, especially if some of them are pointers.

Answer 2

given that you can make multiple declarations on a single line it makes more sense to me that it belongs to the variable rather than the type, e.g.

char *pString, arrString[20];

Answer 3

I too think the char* foo makes more sense when declaring a single variable.

The only time I use the other format is when declaring multiple variables on a single line such as:

char *foo, bar;

Answer 4

Bjarne Stroustrup has something to say about this:

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*

Answer 5

In C++ it makes sense to put the * at the type identifier like char*, as it is part of the type itself.

But if you define multiple variables in the same statement this gets ambiguous and misleading.

char* foo, bar;

While foo has the type char* now, bar has the type char. Therefore many people prefer

char *foo, bar;

to make this clear.

Answer 6

Personally I never declare multiple variables on one line.

Because of that and the fact that I really find patterns nice, I find this simple pattern appealing:

type varname

This means I almost always say int[] iArray or int* piArray (or whatever the hungarian notation would be, I haven't used C++ in a decade).

This also means that I never use int iArray[], since the fact that it's an array is part of the type, not the variable name.

Thinking this way has helped me simplify definitions a few times as well.

Just offering another POV

Answer 7

In most cases, std::string str is much preferable to a char *.

That being said, I usually do something like DataType * ptr, to make the * stand out better. Or, much more often, std::tr1::smart_ptr<DataType> ptr, or maybe an auto_ptr.

Very simply, raw pointers are dangerous to use in quite a few ways, and if I'm going to use one I want it to stand out.

Answer 8

I really like the "char* foo" idiom, because it puts all the information about the variable's type in one place. "char *foo" can be quite confusing if the "*foo" part is tabbed halfway across the screen!

On the other hand, I do agree with other posters that it's confusing when declaring multiple variables on one line. I try not to mix types when declaring multiple variables on one line, and char and char* are separate types in my mind, so that particular situation isn't one that would likely occur in my code.

Answer 9

My answer: neither, you should use:

char * string;

Consider, if Dennis Ritchie (designer of the C language) instead of using the '*' character had used a keyword 'ptr', we would all have to be saying:

char ptr string;

and not having these discussions.

It is also, IMHO, more readable.

Answer 10

(std::string is better than char* for most uses.)

I always put the * with the type, as in char* because, as Stroustrup noted, this emphasizes the type.

And I never declare variables together on one line to avoid the common gotcha discussed in the responses here;

char* p, q;  // oops, probably not what was meant
// this is mandated by our style guide:
char* p;
char* q;

Answer 11

What no one mentioned yet is that the following

char *string

can also be read as declaring the type of the expression *string (read: the indirection operator applied to the pointer string) as char. From this point of view, the notation is perfectly reasonable.

That being said, I use

char * string

myself ;)

Answer 12

The first suggestion (of char* var) would be fine as long as you only declared a single variable per line, but personally, I prefer the "char *var;" and a single variable per line - it may make the function longer in line count, but is very clear.

Finally, C++ should be using "string var", but we always end up either inheriting code with "char *" or having to connect to non-C++ libraries.

Answer 13

Technically, it makes sense to write

char *f

Because *f is the declarator in that, while the char is the declaration specifier which specifies a basic type of all the declarators. The declarators contain operators like (), [] and & which can be thought of modifying the base type, and the actual identifier.

I use the above form of putting * to the identifier because it emphasizes that *f actually is the declarator, while char is the basic type.

To a degree, one can think of the modifiers in a declarator to make the type in the declaration specifier when the operators are applied to the identifier. But it does not always work:

int a, *b, &c = a, d(), e[1], C::*f;

Note how all of a, *b, d() and e[1] statically resolve to an int - apart from &c and C::* which declare a reference (thus it needs to be initialized) and a pointer to a class member respectively.