Talk:C (programming language)/Archive 17: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:02, 31 January 2023

Revision as of 00:02, 14 May 2023

Line 165:

:::Hmmm. Wise words. So where does that leave us? [[User:Chumpih|<span style="text-shadow: 2px 2.5px 3px #448811bb">Chumpih</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Chumpih|t]]} 08:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

::::In the absence of any comments or evidence to the contrary, or any evidence-based retort to comments from a few weeks ago, perhaps the 'dubious' tag can be removed. [[User:Chumpih|<span style="text-shadow: 2px 2.5px 3px #448811bb">Chumpih</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Chumpih|t]]} 22:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

== Pointers to pointers ==

I'm starting this discussion because of the ongoing edit war. I think we can agree that the section on pointers doesn't need a full example showing the use of pointers-to-pointers or a subsection just for pointers-to-pointers. At the same time, I think sentence or two pointing out that pointers-to-pointers are a thing would be nice. There are similar sentences talking about void pointers, character pointers and struct pointers already. @[[User:Fbergo|Fbergo]] @[[User:Pmk456|Pmk456]] What do you guys think? [[User:Erinius|Erinius]] ([[User talk:Erinius|talk]]) 22:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

: Hi, the added section (which I removed) appears to be an attempt to promote a link to a particular course as a citation, so [[WP:CITESPAM]]. The language in which it was written is inadequate for Wikipedia ("when we declare a pointer to pointer...": We?). A short sentence about pointers to pointers could be added to the Pointers section, but I think this article does not need any more code examples. [[User:Fbergo|Fbergo]] ([[User talk:Fbergo|talk]]) 11:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

::Yeah, the language was inadequate and the whole subsection was a bit excessive. Thanks for the feedback, I added in a short little sentence which should be fine. [[User:Erinius|Erinius]] ([[User talk:Erinius|talk]]) 17:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)