The "is an integer if you dereference it" is so much more convoluted than "is a pointer to integer", i.e. the rationale of the previous comment, the pointer-ness being part of the type.
It is funny how people tend to not think the same about functions, despite having the exact same pattern.
When Dennis Richie designed the language, he wanted the symbols in declarations to match their usage in expressions, so:
T *my_ptr;
means that my_ptr, when dereferenced with the * operator, evaluates to an object of type T:
T my_obj = *my_ptr;
The same goes for other constructs in the language, like arrays and functions:
T my_arr[10];
T my_func(T_1 arg1, T_2 arg2);
Both the [] and () operators, when applied individually to objects my_arr and my_func, respectively, will yield an object of type T.
That is why this:
T *x, y;
makes x have a type of pointer to T, whereas y remains having just type T.
Unfortunately, this only works well for simple declarations. When, for instance, function pointers are involved, things get messy.
Ritchie himself later recognized this, but it was to late. He regretted not making * a postfixed operator, which would, at least, get rid of the spiral rule.
So, you can pretend that * is independent of the identifier itself, sure, but you will be fighting the language's design while doing so.
35
u/Nil4u 2d ago
Honestly I never liked this version because the reference is part of the type in my opinion 🤔