There are three pieces to this puzzle.
The first piece is that whitespace in C and C++ is normally not significant beyond separating adjacent tokens that are otherwise indistinguishable.
During the preprocessing stage, the source text is broken up into a sequence of tokens - identifiers, punctuators, numeric literals, string literals, etc. That sequence of tokens is later analyzed for syntax and meaning. The tokenizer is "greedy" and will build the longest valid token that's possible. If you write something like
inttest;
the tokenizer only sees two tokens - the identifier inttest followed by the punctuator ;. It doesn't recognize int as a separate keyword at this stage (that happens later in the process). So, for the line to be read as a declaration of an integer named test, we have to use whitespace to separate the identifier tokens:
int test;
The * character is not part of any identifier; it's a separate token (punctuator) on its own. So if you write
int*test;
the compiler sees 4 separate tokens - int, *, test, and ;. Thus, whitespace is not significant in pointer declarations, and all of
int *test;
int* test;
int*test;
int * test;
are interpreted the same way.
The second piece to the puzzle is how declarations actually work in C and C++¹. Declarations are broken up into two main pieces - a sequence of declaration specifiers (storage class specifiers, type specifiers, type qualifiers, etc.) followed by a comma-separated list of (possibly initialized) declarators. In the declaration
unsigned long int a[10]={0}, *p=NULL, f(void);
the declaration specifiers are unsigned long int and the declarators are a[10]={0}, *p=NULL, and f(void). The declarator introduces the name of the thing being declared (a, p, and f) along with information about that thing's array-ness, pointer-ness, and function-ness. A declarator may also have an associated initializer.
The type of a is "10-element array of unsigned long int". That type is fully specified by the combination of the declaration specifiers and the declarator, and the initial value is specified with the initializer ={0}. Similarly, the type of p is "pointer to unsigned long int", and again that type is specified by the combination of the declaration specifiers and the declarator, and is initialized to NULL. And the type of f is "function returning unsigned long int" by the same reasoning.
This is key - there is no "pointer-to" type specifier, just like there is no "array-of" type specifier, just like there is no "function-returning" type specifier. We can't declare an array as
int[10] a;
because the operand of the [] operator is a, not int. Similarly, in the declaration
int* p;
the operand of * is p, not int. But because the indirection operator is unary and whitespace is not significant, the compiler won't complain if we write it this way. However, it is always interpreted as int (*p);.
Therefore, if you write
int* p, q;
the operand of * is p, so it will be interpreted as
int (*p), q;
Thus, all of
int *test1, test2;
int* test1, test2;
int * test1, test2;
do the same thing - in all three cases, test1 is the operand of * and thus has type "pointer to int", while test2 has type int.
Declarators can get arbitrarily complex. You can have arrays of pointers:
T *a[N];
you can have pointers to arrays:
T (*a)[N];
you can have functions returning pointers:
T *f(void);
you can have pointers to functions:
T (*f)(void);
you can have arrays of pointers to functions:
T (*a[N])(void);
you can have functions returning pointers to arrays:
T (*f(void))[N];
you can have functions returning pointers to arrays of pointers to functions returning pointers to T:
T *(*(*f(void))[N])(void); // yes, it's eye-stabby. Welcome to C and C++.
and then you have signal:
void (*signal(int, void (*)(int)))(int);
which reads as
signal -- signal
signal( ) -- is a function taking
signal( ) -- unnamed parameter
signal(int ) -- is an int
signal(int, ) -- unnamed parameter
signal(int, (*) ) -- is a pointer to
signal(int, (*)( )) -- a function taking
signal(int, (*)( )) -- unnamed parameter
signal(int, (*)(int)) -- is an int
signal(int, void (*)(int)) -- returning void
(*signal(int, void (*)(int))) -- returning a pointer to
(*signal(int, void (*)(int)))( ) -- a function taking
(*signal(int, void (*)(int)))( ) -- unnamed parameter
(*signal(int, void (*)(int)))(int) -- is an int
void (*signal(int, void (*)(int)))(int); -- returning void
and this just barely scratches the surface of what's possible. But notice that array-ness, pointer-ness, and function-ness are always part of the declarator, not the type specifier.
One thing to watch out for - const can modify both the pointer type and the pointed-to type:
const int *p;
int const *p;
Both of the above declare p as a pointer to a const int object. You can write a new value to p setting it to point to a different object:
const int x = 1;
const int y = 2;
const int *p = &x;
p = &y;
but you cannot write to the pointed-to object:
*p = 3; // constraint violation, the pointed-to object is const
However,
int * const p;
declares p as a const pointer to a non-const int; you can write to the thing p points to
int x = 1;
int y = 2;
int * const p = &x;
*p = 3;
but you can't set p to point to a different object:
p = &y; // constraint violation, p is const
Which brings us to the third piece of the puzzle - why declarations are structured this way.
The intent is that the structure of a declaration should closely mirror the structure of an expression in the code ("declaration mimics use"). For example, let's suppose we have an array of pointers to int named ap, and we want to access the int value pointed to by the i'th element. We would access that value as follows:
printf( "%d", *ap[i] );
The expression *ap[i] has type int; thus, the declaration of ap is written as
int *ap[N]; // ap is an array of pointer to int, fully specified by the combination
// of the type specifier and declarator
The declarator *ap[N] has the same structure as the expression *ap[i]. The operators * and [] behave the same way in a declaration that they do in an expression - [] has higher precedence than unary *, so the operand of * is ap[N] (it's parsed as *(ap[N])).
As another example, suppose we have a pointer to an array of int named pa and we want to access the value of the i'th element. We'd write that as
printf( "%d", (*pa)[i] );
The type of the expression (*pa)[i] is int, so the declaration is written as
int (*pa)[N];
Again, the same rules of precedence and associativity apply. In this case, we don't want to dereference the i'th element of pa, we want to access the i'th element of what pa points to, so we have to explicitly group the * operator with pa.
The *, [] and () operators are all part of the expression in the code, so they are all part of the declarator in the declaration. The declarator tells you how to use the object in an expression. If you have a declaration like int *p;, that tells you that the expression *p in your code will yield an int value. By extension, it tells you that the expression p yields a value of type "pointer to int", or int *.
So, what about things like cast and sizeof expressions, where we use things like (int *) or sizeof (int [10]) or things like that? How do I read something like
void foo( int *, int (*)[10] );
There's no declarator, aren't the * and [] operators modifying the type directly?
Well, no - there is still a declarator, just with an empty identifier (known as an abstract declarator). If we represent an empty identifier with the symbol λ, then we can read those things as (int *λ), sizeof (int λ[10]), and
void foo( int λ, int (*λ)[10] );
and they behave exactly like any other declaration. int *[10] represents an array of 10 pointers, while int (*)[10] represents a pointer to an array.
And now the opinionated portion of this answer. I am not fond of the C++ convention of declaring simple pointers as
T* p;
and consider it bad practice for the following reasons:
- It's not consistent with the syntax;
- It introduces confusion (as evidenced by this question, all the duplicates to this question, questions about the meaning of
T* p, q;, all the duplicates to those questions, etc.);
- It's not internally consistent - declaring an array of pointers as
T* a[N] is asymmetrical with use (unless you're in the habit of writing * a[i]);
- It cannot be applied to pointer-to-array or pointer-to-function types (unless you create a typedef just so you can apply the
T* p convention cleanly, which...no);
- The reason for doing so - "it emphasizes the pointer-ness of the object" - is spurious. It cannot be applied to array or function types, and I would think those qualities are just as important to emphasize.
In the end, it just indicates confused thinking about how the two languages' type systems work.
There are good reasons to declare items separately; working around a bad practice (T* p, q;) isn't one of them. If you write your declarators correctly (T *p, q;) you are less likely to cause confusion.
I consider it akin to deliberately writing all your simple for loops as
i = 0;
for( ; i < N; )
{
...
i++;
}
Syntactically valid, but confusing, and the intent is likely to be misinterpreted. However, the T* p; convention is entrenched in the C++ community, and I use it in my own C++ code because consistency across the code base is a good thing, but it makes me itch every time I do it.
¹ I will be using C terminology - the C++ terminology is a little different, but the concepts are largely the same.
int*test;? – SeawrightFoo<Bar<char>>the>>had to be written> >so as not to be treated as a right-shift. – Auk++operator cannot be split by a space, identifiers cannot be split by a space (and the result can be still legal for the compiler but with undefined runtime behavior). The exact situations are very difficult to define considering the syntax mess that C/C++ is. – Wedlock*is not part of any identifier (it's a token all on its own), no whitespace is necessary to separate outint,*, andtest. It will still be parsed asint (*test). – Pushingint* test,test2;doesn't do what you would expect implies that it is wrong, a result of misunderstanding the language, and thatint *test,test2;is correct. – Diffluentint* test; int test2;is correct. – Maitland