difference between static int a and int static a?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

I will still say int* is a type.

---

There is such a type as "pointer to int," yes. You can create it specifically with:

Code:

---

typedef int *intptr;

---

Now, intptr actually IS a typename for "pointer to int". Of course I am not claiming that int pointers do not exist, just that the code fragment "int*" does not refer to the type "pointer to integer." It doesn't refer to a type at all. It is like a sentence fragment -- pretty much meaningless on its own. It simply ain't a type, way down at the very basic (syntactic) level.

What the syntax says, I couldn't care less.
If a pointer points to int, then it must be a type of int*. Why? Because I can't use char* to point to an integer (without a cast, of course). And that tells me that int* and char* are different types. If there would be no types, then we'd be using void* all the time, but we don't.
Feel free to blame my method of interpreting the language, but this is how I see it, this is how I do it and it works fine.

I'm not sure how the C/C++ standard defines a "type", but by using my own common sense as well as the compile errors you get if you pass the wrong type to a function, I would say that int, int*, int**, const int*, int* const... are all different types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewbuck

In fact, the fragments "const int*" and "int* const" are essentially meaningless because the name the star binds to has been left out.

---

I wouldn't call them meaningless. You don't need to specify a parameter name in a function prototype, only the type is required:

Code:

---

void func( int, int*, int** );

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

I wouldn't call them meaningless. You don't need to specify a parameter name in a function prototype, only the type is required:

Code:

---

void func( int, int*, int** );

---

---

The name is still there, it simply exists in the form of an epsilon, i.e. "nothingness." Known as a "trace" in some linguistic theories. And implemented so in the grammar.

But this is getting to be just nonsense.