> Secondly, what he said is that pointers are not just addresses, but typed addresses that know what type they're pointing at. Hum Ok! At first i thought he wa

> Secondly, what he said is that pointers are not just addresses, but typed addresses that know what type they're pointing at. Hum Ok! At first i thought he was disagreeing about pointer representing addresses; now with the way you have put it, and by reading again, i see he is adding more information to it.. thats not only address but a typed address (unless void of course).. Sorry for misunderstanding.. i want to reiterate that i agree with you "dicroce" ;)