[nitrix]

That is correct.

  int x, *p, arr[5], fn(), (*pfn)();

Using x, or dereferencing p, or subscripting the array arr, or declaring a function that can be called with fn, or dereferencing the function pointer pfn then calling it, all these things would produce an int.

It's the intended way to read/write declarations/expressions. As a consequence, asterisks ends up placed near the identifiers. The confused ones will think it's a stylistic choice and won't understand any of this.

[pwdisswordfishy]

Blame Stroustrup.

https://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq2.html#whitespace

[saagarjha]

Of course, the correct way to use a function pointer is to call it.

[nitrix]

Yes, the () operator dereference function pointers automatically for you for convenience. There's also the surprise that you can infinitely dereference function pointers as they just yield you more function pointers.

[korianders]

One baffling thing I see people do with typedefing function pointers is insisting on adding in the pointer part in the typedef which just complicates and hides things.

If you want to typedef a function pointer, make a completely ordinary function declaration, then slap 'typedef' at the beginning, done. This does require you to do "foo_func *f" instead of "foo_func f" when declaring variables, but that is just clearer imo.

    typedef int foo_func(int); // nice

    typedef int (*foo_func)(int); // why?

[cryptonector]

Why do you need the `*` to be part of every variable/member declaration?

[any1]

> It's the intended way to read/write declarations/expressions. As a consequence, asterisks ends up placed near the identifiers.

You know you don't always have to use things as they were intended?

> The confused ones will think it's a stylistic choice and won't understand any of this.

Well, I've written it both ways, and the compiler never seems to mind. :)

Maybe I should start putting space on both sides of the asterisk; seems like it would be a good way to annoy even more people.