Symbols explanation plz

little confused over the use of all the * symbols. I know that

Code:

---

int *var;

---

creates a pointer to a variable but what about this use....

Code:

---

IDirect3DVertexBuffer9* vb;

---

The star symbol is not next to the variable name so is it a pointer?
And what about this one.....

Code:

---

BYTE** ppbData,

---

any help would be greatly appreciated.

It means "pointer to", so "int *p" means that it p is a variable of pointer to integer.

Two stars means "pointer to pointer to ...".

A pointer is essentially a way to keep the location of another variable - like knowing the number of a safetydeposit box where something is stored.

--
Mats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by te5la

little confused over the use of all the * symbols. I know that

Code:

---

int *var;

---

creates a pointer to a variable...

---

So it does, but I find it misleading.
It should be
int* var
If you ask me.
Why? Read on.

Quote:

---

but what about this use....

Code:

---

IDirect3DVertexBuffer9* vb;

---

The star symbol is not next to the variable name so is it a pointer?

---

This is indeed a pointer.
My typical line of thinking is that a pointer is a type of variable.
Therefore, as it is a type, the * appears next to the type.
So...
int*
...would mean it is a pointer, to an int.
Get me here? A pointer is a type.
Let's move on.

Quote:

---

And what about this one.....

Code:

---

BYTE** ppbData,

---

any help would be greatly appreciated.

---

If you follow the previous line of thinking, this means that this is a pointer to BYTE*. Yes, Everything left of the * is the type it points to.
In other words, it's a pointer to a pointer to BYTE.

Thanks guys

That is, "*" is a separate token. C++ doesn't care about whitespace between tokens. Therefore all the following are correct and which placement you use is a style issue.

Code:

---

int* p;
int *p;
int * p;
int
*
p;
etc.

---

yes, a pointer is a 'type' but also a 'variable'.

int* p, i //looks as if they are both pointers at a glance
int *p, i //makes more sense, easier to read

There are always pitfalls.
Because of this somewhat unclear rule, I do not define more than one pointer on the same line.

It is clear: the * binds to the name, not the type.

But yes, that seems reasonable.

That is not clear.
A name cannot consist of a *.
It seems unlogical you can "bind" something to a variable. You assign, you use; that's all.

Some reading.

One argument for the "emphasis on type" might be that T<int*> is a different beast than T<int>, so * appears to be rather part of the type.