Thanks for submitting this. I'm teaching myself C so these high level overviews are super useful for improving my intuition. In the following example, shouldn't there be an asterisk * before the data argument in the getData function call? The way I understand it the function is expecting a pointer so you would need to pass it a pointer of the data object.

> "If you want to “return” memory from a function, you don’t have to use malloc/allocated storage; you can pass a pointer to a local data:

void getData(int *data) { data[0] = 1; data[1] = 4; data[2] = 9; }

void main() { int data[3]; getData(data); printf("%d\n", data[1]); } "

No, it's correct. The asterisk is a little inconsistent, in that it means two opposite things. In the declaration it means "this is a pointer." However, in an expression, it means "this is the underlying type" and serves to dereference the pointer.

    int a = 5;
    int *x; // this is a pointer
    x = &a;
    int c = *x; // both c and *x are ints

If it were *data, it would be equivalent to *(data + 0), which is equivalent to data[0], which is an int. You don't want to pass an int, you want to pass an *int.

The way I got this to stick in my head was to always think of * as dereferencing, and tell myself that

    int *x;

is declaring that the type of *x is int.

It's not just a memorization trick; that's exactly what the statement means. If you do

    int *x, y;

You're saying that both *x and y are integers.

... which is why I never understood why this is the convention rather than

    int* x, y. 

Does somebody know?

Because now you've got an int pointer and an int. The star associates with the right, not left.

I prefer to use the variant you described though, because it feels more natural to associate the pointer with the type itself. As far as I know, the only pitfall is in the multiple declaration thing so I just don't use it.

IMO, it's also more readable in this case:

    int *get_int(void);
    int* get_int(void);

The second one more clearly shows that it returns a pointer-to-int.

Multiple declaration is generally frowned upon, because you declare the variables without immediately setting them to something.

If you always set new variables in the same statement you declare them, then you don't use multiple declarations, which means there is no ambiguity putting the * by the type name.

So convention wins out for convention's sake. And that's the entire point of convention in the first place: to sidestep the ugly warts of a decades-old language design.

Spaces are ignored (except to separate things where other syntactical things like * or , aren't present), and * binds to the variable on the right, not the type on the left. I actually got this wrong in an online test, but I screenshotted every question so I could go over them later (! I admit, a dirty trick but I learned things like this from it, though I still did well enough on the test to get the interview).

int*x,y; // x is pointer to int, y is int.

int x,*y; // x is int, y is pointer to int

And the reason I got it wrong on the test is it had been MANY years since I defined more than one variable in a statement (one variable defined per line is wordier but much cleaner), so if I ever knew this rule before, I had forgotten it over time.

I keep wanting to use slash-star comments, but I recall // is comment-to-end-of-line in C99 and later, something picked up from its earlier use in C++.

Oh yeah, C99 has become the de-facto "official" C language, regardless of more recent changes/improvements, as not all newer changes have made it into newer compilers, and most code written since 1999 seems to follow the C99 standard. I recall gcc and many other compilers have some option to specify which standard to use for compiling.

I think the question is why it binds to the variable rather than the type. It's obviously a choice that the designers have made; e.g. C# has very similar syntax, but:

   int* x, y;

declares two pointers.

I think the syntax and the underpinning "declaration follows use" rule are what they got when they tried to generalize the traditional array declaration syntax with square brackets after the array name which they inherited directly from B, and ultimately all the way from Algol:

   int x, y[10], z[20];

In B, though, arrays were not a type; when you wrote this:

   auto x, y[10], z[20];

x, y, and z all have the same type (word); the [] is basically just alloca(). This all works because the type of element in any array is also the same (word), so you don't need to distinguish different arrays for the purposes of correctly implementing [].

But in C, the compiler has to know the type of the array element, since it can vary. Which means that it has to be reflected in the type of the array, somehow. Which means that arrays are now a type, and thus [] is part of the type declaration.

And if you want to keep the old syntax for array declarations, then you get this situation where the type is separated by the array name in the middle. If you then try to formalize this somehow, the "declaration follows use" rule feels like the simplest way to explain it, and applying it to pointers as well makes sense from a consistency perspective.

You must've misunderstood, your statement looks like both x and y are `int *`, but in fact only x is an `int *`, while y is an `int`.

I don't know for certain, but I suspect it simplified the language's grammar, since C's "declaration follows use" rule means you can basically repurpose the expression grammar for declarations instead of needing new rules for types. This is also why the function pointer syntax is so baroque (`int (*x)();` declares a variable `x` containing a pointer to a function taking no parameters and returning an int).

I like that a lot! However, it makes things like

    int *x = &a;

a bit more confusing/inconsistent.

Not at all!

a is int; &a is pointer to int; x is pointer to int; *x in again int.

Gotcha, so it's kind of like:

    int (*(x = &(a)));
    i    i p   p i   // i means int, p means pointer

I prefer to think of it as

    (int *) x = &(a);
     i   p  p   a i // a means address       
    

Which is why I prefer to write

    int* x = &a;

"integer pointer" named "x" set to address of integer "a".

---

As a sibling comment pointed out, this is ambiguous when using multiple declaration:

    int* foo, bar;

The above statement declares an "integer pointer" foo and an "integer" bar. It can be unambiguously rewritten as:

    int bar, *foo;

But multiple declaration sucks anyway! It's widely accepted good practice to set (instantiate) your variables in the same statement that you declare them. Otherwise your program might start reading whatever data was lying around on the stack (the current value of bar) or worse: whatever random memory address it refers to (the current value of foo).

Thanks :)

Thanks. Now I understand why I found pointers difficult. It's the declaration that confused me.

I think it would help if beginners learn a language other than C to learn about pointers. My first language was Pascal, and it didn't have a confusing declaration syntax, nor did it have a confusing array decay behavior so it was much much easier to learn. Nowadays of course I don't think about it but those details mattered to beginners.

Yeah. Since trying C, I've learnt a bit of Rust, so referencing and dereferencing seem straightforward without abstracting references using a pointer.

You can read a declaration like `int x` as “`x` is an int”, and hence x is an int pointer.

With the asterisks backslash escaped:

> ..read a declaration like `int *x` as "`*x` is an int"..

No, it's fine.

The name of an array decays to a pointer to the first element in various contexts. You could do `&data[0]` but it means exactly the same thing and would read as over-complicated things to C programmers.

Thanks for all the great answers. The inconsistency between pointer deceleration and dereference syntax was what got me. :)

the local variable data effectively decays to int*.

*data would give you an int, &data would give you an int*.

Sounds really cool. Can someone smarter than I explain what are the main differences between this and the recent study carried out at the Weizmann Institute of Science? Is it mostly the successful development of the brain? - https://www.jpost.com/science/article-713690

Unrelated to the contents on the article but the wording of the title made me think that the Harvard Professor crashed into the Pacific Ocean. You might want to consider clearing it up.

To be fair, if a Harvard professor impacted the ocean that hard and on that trajectory, that would also be news.

I don't think a Harvard professor could be retrieved from the ocean floor using a magnet. Unless he had been an android, in which case I guess that would be worth investigating.

Obligatory "there truly is an xkcd for everything."