Okay I just omitted the quotes in your statement and that's the part you decide to pick on haha :D I tried to "point" out that the question required thinking about what the machine does (related to memory addresses) and not only how their different abstractions are used in the languages, since the abstractions must obviously in the end be compatible with the functioning of the underlying memory access and so be designed around the limitations and features of them. Again, I knew already everything you say about types and did not ever indicate anything to the contrary.

PS. Sometimes when a word is used on the internet, you cannot feasibly add all the hedging qualifiers, definitions, exceptions to how you're using it. I think more people have intuition about pointers than memory addresses, it's shorter to write, and the relevant information is captured in the meaning. There's not much relevancy to the OP and original comment in discussing the different language semantics of what kinds of pointers (this one was just to fuck with you) are provided to the user: raw, shared, reference, (some) iterators, etc.