Thread: Is there a difference between these prototypes?

I'm reading "Teach Yourself C++ in 21 Days" by Jesse Liberty, 3rd ed.

In a few code samples, but specifically listing 9.8, some function prototypes are defined as follows:

short Factor(int n, int* pSquared, int* pCubed);

What is the difference, if any, between that and this:

short Factor(int n, int *pSquared, int *pCubed);

It doesn't explain the difference if there is any, but I suspect it is a typographical error.

Would anyone care to share some insight?

Thanks!

The only difference is where the asterik (*) is placed.
For the parameter the two are as follows per your example.
#1) short Factor(int n, int* pSquared, int* pCubed);

#2) short Factor(int n, int *pSquared, int *pCubed);

The placing of the * does not matter. It is all personal preference.

int *pInt = NULL; // Pointer to an integer

is the same as...

int* pInt = NULL; // Pointer to an integer

Personally, I prefer the first notation of placing the asterik next to the name, it is how I learned pointers. Anyway hope this helped you.

C/C++ doesnt care where you have the asterik(*) for a pointer. int* ptr; and int *ptr; are the same things ... just a matter of style.

Thanks for the quick response.

I suspected that was the case (as it would have been silly otherwise), but I wish this book had been consistent so as to not confused would-be newbies such as myself

I tend to use the "int *ptr;" sytax rather than "int* ptr;" because it sets me up for making this mistake... "int* ptr, ptr1;" that's just maybe only I make that mistake