Since this is about C declarations: for anyone who (like me) had the misfortune of learning the so-called "spiral rule" in college rather than being taught how declarations in C work, below are some links that explain the "declaration follows use" idea that (AFAIK) is the true philosophy behind C declaration syntax (and significantly easier to remember/read/write).

TL;DR: you declare a variable in C _in exactly the same way you would use it:_ if you know how to use a variable, then you know how to read and write a declaration for it.

https://eigenstate.org/notes/c-decl https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12775966

▲ userbinator 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

if you know how to use a variable, then you know how to read and write a declaration for it.

In other words, the precedence of operators in a declaration have exactly the same precedence as in its use.

▲ nitrix 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That is correct.

  int x, *p, arr[5], fn(), (*pfn)();

Using x, or dereferencing p, or subscripting the array arr, or declaring a function that can be called with fn, or dereferencing the function pointer pfn then calling it, all these things would produce an int.

It's the intended way to read/write declarations/expressions. As a consequence, asterisks ends up placed near the identifiers. The confused ones will think it's a stylistic choice and won't understand any of this.

▲ pwdisswordfishy 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Blame Stroustrup.

https://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq2.html#whitespace

▲ saagarjha 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Of course, the correct way to use a function pointer is to call it.

▲ nitrix 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, the () operator dereference function pointers automatically for you for convenience. There's also the surprise that you can infinitely dereference function pointers as they just yield you more function pointers.

▲ korianders 3 days ago | parent [-]

One baffling thing I see people do with typedefing function pointers is insisting on adding in the pointer part in the typedef which just complicates and hides things.

If you want to typedef a function pointer, make a completely ordinary function declaration, then slap 'typedef' at the beginning, done. This does require you to do "foo_func *f" instead of "foo_func f" when declaring variables, but that is just clearer imo.

    typedef int foo_func(int); // nice

    typedef int (*foo_func)(int); // why?

	▲	cryptonector 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Why do you need the `*` to be part of every variable/member declaration?

▲ any1 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's the intended way to read/write declarations/expressions. As a consequence, asterisks ends up placed near the identifiers.

You know you don't always have to use things as they were intended?

> The confused ones will think it's a stylistic choice and won't understand any of this.

Well, I've written it both ways, and the compiler never seems to mind. :)

Maybe I should start putting space on both sides of the asterisk; seems like it would be a good way to annoy even more people.