Hmm, mighty glad I never worked for a large corp (other than once) that micromanaged coding to the nth degree like that. As I think I alluded to earlier, the one i did was a very large retail bank did indeed have a stipulation for only one operation in each statement, this included not being able to use
a=*p++;
It would have to be
a=*p;
p++;
However, bearing in mind the quality of the programmers they were using, basically new graduates dropped in there by a very large accountant with an IT consultancy bolted on the side, it needed to be simple.
My thoughts are that if everyone has to write noddy code for the lowest common denominator, it's probably time to improve that lowest common denominator. Equally, everyone must be mindful of whether they're writing write only code.
Regarding not using pointers, I'd say that it's probably more to do with not being comfortable with the concept rather than being bad. In embedded stuff and driver programming in particular, where performance is everything, pointers bring you closer to the machine code. Passing data structures by value ain't going to win you any races.
About the mix of Hungarian and non-Hungarian, somewhat ironically I was trying to give a clear example without a ton of other code. From the comments, like it or not it appears it succeeded in doing that, in fact it seems that everyone knew what was being done in at statement. Although I wouldn't go to those extremes in practice, it seems it was clear in what was being attempted. BTW, no, I don't mix, I'm pretty anal about the style and consistency that I use, and like it or not I was brought up on Hungarian and have no intention of changing now!
Back when I did real work, I wrote a spec for writing SQL statements after a number of schoolboy related coding problems. Sadly we'd had some ivory tower idiot recruited and parachuted in who was an academic with no real world experience, and demanded that everything was set-based without any procedural stuff. A noble desire. But have you ever tried to understand a ten page SQL statement with 250 tables in it? Interestingly, I was brought in when the join ended up breaking the 256 table join limit of the system when an underlying view was altered. Spent a week disecting the query and related views and re-writing it from scratch.