C++ lack of logic on pointer initialisation & use

Question

This is not logic :

int *ptr = &otherInt;

When we do that, ptr gives adress of otherInt, *ptr gives otherInt.

But we write explicitly that (*ptr) equals adress *ptr = &otherInt !

Logically, *ptr should give the adress, and ptr the otherInt.

Don't you think ?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5727/what-are-the-barriers-to-understanding-pointers-and-what-can-be-done-to-overcome — πάντα ῥεῖ, Feb 28 '14 at 21:09

score 1 · Accepted Answer · answered Feb 28 '14 at 21:09

1

I think you got it all wrong. Consider this:

int *ptr;
int otherInt = 10;

ptr = &otherInt; // Notice this line.

The asterisk is a part of the declaration, not the assignment.

answered Feb 28 '14 at 21:09

Kelm

Yes! That's why I prefer to write: `int* ptr;` – πάντα ῥεῖ Feb 28 '14 at 21:11
But that is even more confusing if you declare mutliple variables in one line... – Kelm Feb 28 '14 at 21:12
_'if you declare mutliple variables in one line'_ This is **strongly discouraged** by most of the currently relevant c++ coding rules anyways. – πάντα ῥεῖ Feb 28 '14 at 21:15
So should be mallocing tiny, compilation-time constant in size buffers. Yet people do it. And in most cases forget to free it. – Kelm Feb 28 '14 at 21:18

1 Answers1