Here is an otter

I’ve seen that in style guides ”because it should piss of everyone equally”.

I also sometimes wish that the syntax in if statements was inverted, where () was optional and {} was required.

Having assignments return a value is right up there as well.

You would think so, but int* a, b is actually eqivalent to int* a; int b, so the asterisk actually does go with the name. Writing int* a, *b is inconsistent, so int *a, *b is the way to go.

Then again, at least in C, the mantra is "declaration follows usage". Surely you don't write pointer dereferences as * ptr? Most likely not, you most likely write it as *ptr. The idea behind the int *ptr; syntax is basically that when you do *ptr, you get an int.

And with this idea, stuff like function pointers (int (*f)(void)), arrays of pointers (int *a[10]) versus pointers of arrays (int (*a)[10]) etc. start making sense. It's certainly not the best way to design the syntax, and I'm as much a fan of the Pascal-styled "type follows the identifier" syntax (e.g. let x: number;) as anyone, but the C way does have a rhyme and a reason for the way it is.

int* i, j

The C syntax is just messed up.

It's part of the type yet it's also a unique identifier. That's the whole thing with east or west const. const int * is a ~~immutable~~ mutable pointer that points to ~~mutable~~ immutable memory. int *const is a ~~mutable~~ immutable pointer that points to ~~immutable~~ memory. int const * is the same type as the first example, a ~~immutable~~ mutable pointer that points to ~~mutable~~ immutable memory.

Same stuff applies to references which makes it easier to think of the variable owning the * or & as if you want that pointer or reference to be const it has to go after.

Edit:I am a moron who managed to get it exactly backwards :|

I do this in my code because it looks better and makes more sense...until I decide to declare 2 vars on one line and then I use the very cursed int* a, *b

tbh I always think about it as 'p' is a pointer to int

therefore *p is an int

therefore I should call it int *p;

however, of course, you should use what your team prefers. Having good yet inconsistent style is worst than mid consistent style.

And yet the default clang formatter gets it wrong.

I don't code much C++, but then I'd lose alignment with: x = *p; and I feel that would bug me.

I'm looking at Google Style Guide for my next project and it says either is fine, just don't declare more than one per line.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76975645/how-can-i-give-different-colors-for-class-enum-and-interface-names-identifiers might get you closer?