Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)

[korpela@islay.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela)]

In article <37AF8456.E420B0D7@cat.csiro.au>,
Matthew van de Werken  <m.vandewerken@cat.csiro.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>Chris Hedley wrote:
>> 
>> In article <xlxyafmif0u.fsf@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
>>         Matt Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net> writes:
>> > A few (obvious?) candidates:
>> 
>> 
>> >  int *laser;
>> 
>> Er, this one I really just don't get at all.  Anyone want to explain it?
>
>I think it means "laser pointer", but it would be more "funny" IMO if it
>was:
>
>laser *i;

IMHO, C declatations are better read in reverse.  I read the first as
"laser pointer to int" and the second as "i pointer to laser." 

Reading in the correct order helps when you get to 

int * const *i;

Eric
-- 
Eric Korpela                        |  An object at rest can never be
korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu            |  stopped.
<a href="http://sag-www.ssl.berkeley.edu/~korpela";>Click for home page.</a>