Pointer initialisation in C++

Question

In the C++ book I am reading. It gives the syntax for initialisation as

int *pInteger = NULL;

However it also showed the following as an example

int Age = 30;

int* pInteger = &Age;

Why is there a discrepancy? i.e. * after the int and * before the pInteger. Is the following correct?

int Age = 30;

int *pInteger = &Age;

The 1st example initializes it to _nothing_. The 2nd example **also initializes** it but with a valid address. — James Adkison, Oct 20 '15 at 19:52
@juanchopanza In the second, the * is after the int. In the first, the * is in front of the pInteger... — Lost1, Oct 20 '15 at 19:53
Apparently this is not a discrepancy; there are different ways to initialize a pointer. — Codor, Oct 20 '15 at 19:53
That has nothing to do with the initialization, that's part of the syntax of declaring a pointer. They're equivalent, different programmers have different styles. — Barmar, Oct 20 '15 at 19:53
The difference in white space is of no consequence (it's equivalent). — James Adkison, Oct 20 '15 at 19:53
@Lost1 see [placement of the asterisk in pointer declarations](http://stackoverflow.com/q/180401/3953764) — Piotr Skotnicki, Oct 20 '15 at 19:54

score 1 · Accepted Answer · answered Oct 20 '15 at 19:54

1

C++ is generally a free-form language. You can use whitespace pretty much however you like. All of the following are equivalent:

int *foo1;
int* foo2;
int * foo3;
int*foo4;

answered Oct 20 '15 at 19:54

melpomene

1 Answers1