RT*** isn’t pointing at RT*, he’s pointing at the TV showing RT**. The fact you think otherwise is what makes the image unclear. I’m not sure why you insist on them being wrong.
int** is inside a TV, and persumably int* must be inside another TV(even though uts not edited in). The image perespective is showing one thing inside the other, inside the other. So when when int*** points the TV it reference int**, which reference int* which reference int. Its just edited very bad
Wait. It’s been a long time but shouldn’t be int*** -> int** -> int* -> int ?
I think int*** is meant to be pointing at int**, but the image is just unclear about where everything is in perspective.
Pretty sure the image is clear:
int*** -> int* int** -> int Int* -> intClarity doesn’t mean correct. But that’s probably why it’s posted here. 🤷♂️
RT*** isn’t pointing at RT*, he’s pointing at the TV showing RT**. The fact you think otherwise is what makes the image unclear. I’m not sure why you insist on them being wrong.
int** is inside a TV, and persumably int* must be inside another TV(even though uts not edited in). The image perespective is showing one thing inside the other, inside the other. So when when int*** points the TV it reference int**, which reference int* which reference int. Its just edited very bad
What’s the * for again?
That one’s a typo
It’s to check to see if commenters know how to escape the symbol. Congratulations! You passed!
Source: I made it up.
You don’t need to escape standalone *. At least not on Lemmy.
You can’t escape it, it will always get you.
Well, I thought my misinformation was funny.
I mean, that’s pretty much what happens to me every time I try to use pointers, so the meme checks out.
yep this is just someone misunderstanding pointers lol
That’s not the end of the chain either, right?
Because : int -> &int -> &&int
Or can you not use the address operator like that? It also might be int& &, I failed cs2200 on this exact type of technicality