问题描述
我理解数组如何衰减到指针。我理解，对于编译器，这是：
I understand how arrays decay to pointers. I understand that, for the compiler, this:
void foo(int *arg1);
是100％等效于此：
void foo(int arg1[]);
一种风格应该优先于另一种风格吗？
Should one style be preferred over the other? I want to be consistent, but I'm having a hard time justifying either decision.
虽然 int main（int argc，char * argv [ ]）和 int main（int argc，char ** argv）是一样的，前者似乎更常见
Although int main(int argc, char *argv[]) and int main(int argc, char **argv) are the same, the former seems to be much more common (correct me if I'm wrong).
推荐答案
我会建议反对使用 [] 函数参数的语法。
I would recommend against using the [] syntax for function parameters.
有利于使用 [] 就是说，它以自我记录的方式暗示指针应该指向多个事物。例如：
The one argument in favour of using [] is that it implies, in a self-documenting way, that the pointer is expected to point to more than one thing. For example:
void swap(int *x, int *y)
double average(int vals[], int n)
但是为什么 char * 总是用于字符串而不是 char [] ？我宁愿一直，总是使用 * 。
But then why is char * always used for strings rather than char []? I'd rather be consistent and always use *.
有些人喜欢 const 所有可能的东西，包括传值的参数。使用 [] （仅在C99中可用）的语法不那么直观，而且可能不太熟悉：
Some people like to const everything they possibly can, including pass-by-value parameters. The syntax for that when using [] (available only in C99) is less intuitive and probably less well-known:
const char * const * const words 与 const char * const words [const]
虽然我认为最终的 const 是过度的，但在任何情况下。
Although I do consider that final const to be overkill, in any case.
此外，数组衰减的方式并不完全直观。特别是（ char words [] [] 不起作用）。特别是当你开始引入更多的间接， [] 语法只会导致混乱。 IMO最好总是使用指针语法，而不是假装将数组作为参数传递。
Furthermore, the way that arrays decay is not completely intuitive. In particular, it is not applied recursively (char words[][] doesn't work). Especially when you start throwing in more indirection, the [] syntax just causes confusion. IMO it is better to always use pointer syntax rather than pretending that an array is passed as an argument.
更多信息：。
这篇关于C函数参数中的数组语法与指针语法的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！