It might be worth emphacising the value of typedefs to represent the semantics of the pointer "types". This reduces errors resulting from the confusion that your article alludes to by making double pointers look and act like single pointers. More a topic for the value of typedefs, but their usage can keep clear in one's mind, the usage and intent of the elements, pointer, double pointer, n-pointer, or no pointer.
It might be worth emphacising the value of typedefs to represent the semantics of the pointer "types". This reduces errors resulting from the confusion that your article alludes to by making double pointers look and act like single pointers. More a topic for the value of typedefs, but their usage can keep clear in one's mind, the usage and intent of the elements, pointer, double pointer, n-pointer, or no pointer.
In C++, there is another way to code a double pointer (*&). See stackoverflow.com/a/5789842/5652483
That's a reference to a pointer, not a double pointer.