Quote Originally Posted by Yarin
This is wrong. You _do_ say "pointer to <value>", as well as, "pointer to <type>". While this may not be correct in the most technical sense. It's what people say, because it's easier, and to say it in the long form is redundant considering you know what one means when they say that anyway.
Yes, I would accept "pointer to <value>" as a colloquial expression for "pointer to an object with value <value>".

Quote Originally Posted by Yarin
But then... if you want to get all technically correct, then really, down the same line of thinking, saying "pointer to <type>" is also wrong. It's a "pointer to <said> location in memory"
No, merely talking about a location in memory is incomplete. A pointer's value is an address, but the pointer itself has a type, derived from the type of an object that the pointer would point to.