Which one is it?
int *x;
int* x;
int * x;
Which one is it?
int *x;
int* x;
int * x;
>int *x;
it's not an int
>int* x;
ah yes, a pointer to int
>int * x;
kys
>int* x, y;
>x, y
Nah,
>int x;
x is an int
>int *x;
x is a pointer, specifically a pointer to int
>int x, *y;
x is an int, y is an int pointer;
This is clearly how it was intended to be thought about.
See
See
#define int* intp
intp x
I regret writing my project in the first one. But am too lazy to change all occurrences to second one. Specifically casting looks stupid. (type *)other_type And does returning a pointer. type * function(void)
K&R _style_, everything else is cancer
I use int *x for everything. Fight me.
>not using auto format tools
use a tool like clang-format
not wrong
>not using typedef
I wouldn't know, I only program in patrician Java.
Either one, but those should be tabs dumbass
int* x;
The only one if you use any other you are a dumbass
If they all compile then they're all correct.
I personally use int *x.
It's perfectly valid. The problem is that
int* x, y;
makes x an int pointer and y an int. there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but
by doing
int *x;
things are more consistent and less error prone
std::shared_ptr(x);
This is the only acceptable answer. Enjoy your leaks otherwise.
(* int x)
>shared
>not unique
Anyhow, this is the only acceptable answer. Enjoy your leaks otherwise.
gc.run();
>he doesn't realize that a shared pointer with only one reference is literally the exact same thing as a unique ptr
>she doesn't realize that a shared pointer with only one reference is literally the exact same thing as a unique ptr, but doesn't safeguard against uniqueness
>another episode of Jow Forums circlejerking pointless nitpick language semantics
stay unemployed dweeb
yes this is Jow Forums wagecuck
See
int * pX
i love unemployed neets
C notation is fucking retarded
When new C?
This.