pointer initializatin - where to put the asterisk?

Hello there!
I am puzzled by a question lately, to wich I can't find an answer. What is the difference between the next pointer initialization methods:

Code:

---

int* pointer_name=NULL

---

and

Code:

---

int *pointer_name=NULL

---

I undestand, that the second one is the "standard" way of initializing a pointer, or at least that is how the tutorial on this website shows it, but what does the first one mean?

As I was searching the web for answers, I found another interesting example, where the pointer was initialized like this:

Code:

---

int * pointer_name=NULL

---

This was supposed to have some sort of special meaning, but I did not quite understand it, and I can't find the website now for further studying. I would be glad if someone could explain to me all these things about pointer initialization.

Big thanks in advance for everyone, reading this.

They mean exactly the same thing, it's a matter of style. I prefer the third one personally.

Just keep in mind that doing

Code:

---

int* p1, p2;

---

Does not declare two pointers, as if int* was a new type declaration. You could use a typedef to make an alias if you wanted to, but that is another story. If you want to declare two pointers, you have to do something like this:

Code:

---

int* p1, *p2;

---

or

Code:

---

int* p1, * p2;

---

Whatever you end up doing, try to be consistent in your use of it.

Hm... I am trying to understand how does the next function works. It is from a SDL game programming tutorial.

Code:

---

SDL_Surface *load_image(char filename[])
        {
        SDL_Surface* loadedImage=NULL;
        SDL_Surface* optimizedImage=NULL;

        loadedImage=SDL_LoadBMP(filename);
        if(loadedImage!=NULL)
                {
                optimizedImage=SDL_DisplayFormat(loadedImage);
                SDL_FreeSurface(loadedImage);
                }
        return optimizedImage;
        }

---

As you can see, both methods are used in this function definition - but why? Is this really just a matter of style or does it make some crucial difference if I put the asterisk to another position? As far as I tested, the program runs and compiles fine, when I play around with the asterisks, so - can it be, that the author of the tutorial wasn't consistent enough?

Thanks for the answers so far!

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#whitespace
Bjarne "explains" the difference between the two styles.
I prefer the first one, and find the 3rd one acceptable, as well.

I like the 2nd one because it makes the most sense, and you can consider it the same as dereferencing ;)

Now, that is the kind of answer I was looking for! Thanks a lot everyone, for helping me out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

I like the 2nd one because it makes the most sense, and you can consider it the same as dereferencing ;)

---

The second one makes absolutely no sense to me, whatsoever... :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laczfinador

can it be, that the author of the tutorial wasn't consistent enough?

---

Yes, there is a minor inconsisteny in style there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup

placing the * closer to the name does not make this kind of error significantly less likely.

---

I disagree, but will grant that obviously my opinion as a programmer matters very little compared to someone as experienced as Stroustrup. That said, when I see

Code:

---

double *p, q;

---

it is immediately obvious to me that p is the pointer, and q is just a double.* For the original poster, seeing as you are posting this on the C board, have a look at this and this from the comp.lang.c FAQ. Steve Summit acknowledges the difference of opinion of the C FAQ and Stroustrups C++ FAQ.

I think Stroustrup makes a good point about declaring each pointer one per line. Again, whichever style one chooses, it is good to be consistent.

* - I would add that I am undoubtedly biased by the fact that C is the first language I learned and though I dabble in other languages (most recently I have taken up the task of becoming competent in C++ programming) it is still my 'primary' language. I have also gotten used to K&R style. Had I learned C++ first, I guess I would probably be more inclined to the 'Stroustrup style' of declaring a pointer with the asterisk next to the type rather than the name...