int* foo(); and int& foo();

if you're a

int *foo(); and int &foo();

kinda guy, you're fucking weird. And also wrong

Haven't dabbled too much in C++, but if both are valid, then it can be reasoned towards both variants (and the third - with a space on both sides of the operator)

@kamen No

This. Is. Ampersand!

It's &i64, obviously.

@deadlyRants Based rustacean

It's not my fault you don't live on the greater plane of existence where int *foo() is acceptable.

Bloody muggles and their int* foo() mentality 🤷‍♂️

@C0D4 It's not a pointer function god dammit!

@12bitfloat but I'm using the data returned from the function as pointer, hence the *s position.

If I was just declaring an int* X = 5; then thats me saying that X is 5 and assigned at that moment, but from foo() it's collected from somewhere else.

Get with the times boi!!

Agreed. It's far more readable.

[var_type] [var_name].

It is bad enough my IDE tries to fix this shit for me. Now it appears both ways because of my code and the auto generated code.

The function isn't a pointer or reference. It returns that shit.

Whatever clang-format does, I'm so past formatting my code manually.

Now if I get to setup my own .clang-format it it would be int& foo()

devDuck you, I'm gonna take function pointers.

```c
int() *foo;
```