all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 96 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Actually void* just points to anything, with no regard to the type of that thing. Pointing to the void is more accurately described by NULL pointer.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Fair, though I guess my interpretation was that void* is kind of like a black hole in that anything can fall into it in an unsettling way that loses information about what it was?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    "Allow me to combine the worst feature of strong typing with the worst feature of dynamic typing".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    So, when I want the void to point back at me, do I have to loop over void* or over NULL?
    And how many iterations?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago*

    Void star labs/Zach Freedman moment

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    There are no ints in the void, only... death...

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    For God sake, be consistent. It's either int*, int**, void* or int *, int **, void *

  • source