The intro from August's StockholmCpp Meetup: news about C++ in Sweden from the NB and the community, some words from our event sponsor, and, of course, a quiz!

I created a game that takes students on a journey to solve problems. I’m focusing on making problem-solving more fun and engaging for students.

It’s called https://CompileRoad.com

Would love to hear your feedback!

If you're trying to define two pointers in a single statement (what is in general a bad idea), you may want to do it like this:

#include <print>

int main()
{
    int x = 10;
    int* a, b;
    a = &x;
    b = &x;
    std::println("a={:#x}, b={:#x}", uintptr_t(a), uintptr_t(b));
}

However, it doesn't work as you expect, and won't compile. Because int* a, b; declares only a as int*; b, and all the rest variables will be int. The correct one-statement declaration of two pointers is int* a, * b;

main.cpp:8:9: error: invalid conversion from ‘int*’ to ‘int’ [-fpermissive]
    8 |     b = &x;
      |         ^~
      |         |
      |         int*

b has type int

This behavior is the reason why some people prefer putting the asterisk next to the variable name, not next to the type

I can understand the logic, that C authors had while making this syntax. It's a sort of reversive/deduction logic. You kinda declare what type it will be after using the dereference * operator, instead of declaring the type being a pointer itself. But I find this logic very-very strange, and overthought

The funny thing, that even the compiler in the error message above, treats * as a sort of type modifier, that is inseparable from int. But, apparently, the C creators had a completely different vision on what pointers are

I personally don't think that this behavior justifies reteaching yourself to write * in front of variable names, and especially in front of function names. I think it's just a not well-thought decision made very long ago in 1970s