I was specifically responding to the comment above, which had clearly conflated the standard not specifying the representation of a pointer with “anything anyone says about pointers isn’t actually correct”. Keeping the standard in mind the definition of “variable” generally extends to “any typed memory regardless of whether it has a name or not”, and the pointers K&R are talking about are fairly clear to mean this in the sense of the pointer being dereferenceable to a specific type. That being said, you are correct that there are other pointers not mentioned in that statement that are an entirely separate class from normal data pointers: untyped buffers, usually specified by void * but (for legacy reasons) often char * as well. And of course, there’s also function pointers that you dereference only to call them.

Um, why wouldn't it be correct to call any/all of thoes examples a variable?

They’re not variables until they’ve been specified a type, which is at the point you first assign to the memory in a typed fashion I believe. It’s significantly more pedantic than the first line in an introductory text will go into, though ;)

Nah, that's wrong. A variable doesn't need a type. Case in point; void.

All variables have types in C. You can't declare a "void" variable. You can declare a void function. Try assigning it to a variable. You can't. void pointers (void*) are a different story.

So just the opposite of what the comment you replied to suggested:

'void' is a type, but in C values of the type void are not first class. Ie a function can return a value of type void, but you can't assign it to a variable.

I'm not sure what you mean, could you explain a bit more?

Are you saying void is not a type?