A minor syntax request

[Petko]

On 04/16/2013 01:55 PM, Alan Griffiths wrote:
> On 16/04/13 11:50, Petko wrote:
>> On 04/16/2013 01:32 PM, Alan Griffiths wrote:
>>> Putting * or & with the type has a long standing tradition within the
>>> C++ culture - it started with the first edition of "The C++
>>> Programming Language" and has been common practice ever since. There
>>> is an associated tradition of declaring each variable separately.
>>> (These two go together as "pretending" the type includes * or &
>>> doesn't work if multiple variables are declared.) This is very
>>> different to the C tradition.
>> I'm subscribed  mainly as a spectator , but I have to note that the
>> tradition is less important than the program logic (in most cases ,
>> since we shouldn't keep the mistakes of the people before us till the
>> end of time) . If the C/C++ standard says that the */& belong to the
>> variable , then they should be visually associated with it .
>>
>> Petko
>>
> The tradition is based on the reasonable belief that "*/&" is
> semantically part of the type. Sadly, it is too late to fix the syntax
> to agree with the semantics.
>
As I think about it , there is reason to accept */& as part of the type 
. It's apparently a question of perception . I tend to declare variables 
in batch , where appropriate (int x,y,z,*t ,*w //dimentions of A) and 
therefore associate the */& with the variable names in said syntax . So 
yeah , sorry for intervening , it's apparently the code maintainers 
decision , not so much an arguable point .

Best regards ,
Petko