Pointer code define style...

[3CXz8vqX]

Right, I've seen pointers defined in three ways. Which way should I be using?


int* pointer;
int * pointer;
int *pointer

I'm also aware that (now) that a * changes the type because...as I just tried...
int ted = &andy is invalid until I make ted a pointer. (And I'm not entirely sure why...I'll just re-read this chapter...).

[Zhuge]

Whatever way you like, as they are all syntactically equivalent. Just be consistent.

[writetonsharma]

i mostly like the first one.. because int is a pointer and attaching * closing to int makes more sense to me.

because pointers are made to store addresses and an int cannot hold an address.

[Zhuge]

In the interest of showing the other side, the counterargument is usually that style is misleading when declaring multiple variables separated by a comma (not a good idea in general, IMO) then only the first type has pointer type and so the * belongs with the identifier name.