Related
C++ references have two properties:
They always point to the same object.
They can not be 0.
Pointers are the opposite:
They can point to different objects.
They can be 0.
Why is there no "non-nullable, reseatable reference or pointer" in C++? I can't think of a good reason why references shouldn't be reseatable.
Edit:
The question comes up often because I usually use references when I want to make sure that an "association" (I'm avoiding the words "reference" or "pointer" here) is never invalid.
I don't think I ever thought "great that this ref always refers to the same object". If references were reseatable, one could still get the current behavior like this:
int i = 3;
int& const j = i;
This is already legal C++, but meaningless.
I restate my question like this: "What was the rationale behind the 'a reference is the object' design? Why was it considered useful to have references always be the same object, instead of only when declared as const?"
Cheers, Felix
The reason that C++ does not allow you to rebind references is given in Stroustrup's "Design and Evolution of C++" :
It is not possible to change what a reference refers to after initialization. That is, once a C++ reference is initialized it cannot be made to refer to a different object later; it cannot be re-bound. I had in the past been bitten by Algol68 references where r1=r2 can either assign through r1 to the object referred to or assign a new reference value to r1 (re-binding r1) depending on the type of r2. I wanted to avoid such problems in C++.
In C++, it is often said that "the reference is the object". In one sense, it is true: though references are handled as pointers when the source code is compiled, the reference is intended to signify an object that is not copied when a function is called. Since references are not directly addressable (for example, references have no address, & returns the address of the object), it would not semantically make sense to reassign them. Moreover, C++ already has pointers, which handles the semantics of re-setting.
Because then you'd have no reseatable type which can not be 0. Unless, you included 3 types of references/pointers. Which would just complicate the language for very little gain (And then why not add the 4th type too? Non-reseatable reference which can be 0?)
A better question may be, why would you want references to be reseatable? If they were, that would make them less useful in a lot of situations. It would make it harder for the compiler to do alias analysis.
It seems that the main reason references in Java or C# are reseatable is because they do the work of pointers. They point to objects. They are not aliases for an object.
What should the effect of the following be?
int i = 42;
int& j = i;
j = 43;
In C++ today, with non-reseatable references, it is simple. j is an alias for i, and i ends up with the value 43.
If references had been reseatable, then the third line would bind the reference j to a different value. It would no longer alias i, but instead the integer literal 43 (which isn't valid, of course). Or perhaps a simpler (or at least syntactically valid) example:
int i = 42;
int k = 43;
int& j = i;
j = k;
With reseatable references. j would point to k after evaluating this code.
With C++'s non-reseatable references, j still points to i, and i is assigned the value 43.
Making references reseatable changes the semantics of the language. The reference can no longer be an alias for another variable. Instead it becomes a separate type of value, with its own assignment operator. And then one of the most common usages of references would be impossible. And nothing would be gained in exchange. The newly gained functionality for references already existed in the form of pointers. So now we'd have two ways to do the same thing, and no way to do what references in the current C++ language do.
A reference is not a pointer, it may be implemented as a pointer in the background, but its core concept is not equivalent to a pointer. A reference should be looked at like it *is* the object it is referring to. Therefore you cannot change it, and it cannot be NULL.
A pointer is simply a variable that holds a memory address. The pointer itself has a memory address of its own, and inside that memory address it holds another memory address that it is said to point to. A reference is not the same, it does not have an address of its own, and hence it cannot be changed to "hold" another address.
I think the parashift C++ FAQ on references says it best:
Important note: Even though a
reference is often implemented using
an address in the underlying assembly
language, please do not think of a
reference as a funny looking pointer
to an object. A reference is the
object. It is not a pointer to the
object, nor a copy of the object. It
is the object.
and again in FAQ 8.5 :
Unlike a pointer, once a reference is
bound to an object, it can not be
"reseated" to another object. The
reference itself isn't an object (it
has no identity; taking the address of
a reference gives you the address of
the referent; remember: the reference
is its referent).
A reseatable reference would be functionally identical to a pointer.
Concerning nullability: you cannot guarantee that such a "reseatable reference" is non-NULL at compile time, so any such test would have to take place at runtime. You could achieve this yourself by writing a smart pointer-style class template that throws an exception when initialised or assigned NULL:
struct null_pointer_exception { ... };
template<typename T>
struct non_null_pointer {
// No default ctor as it could only sensibly produce a NULL pointer
non_null_pointer(T* p) : _p(p) { die_if_null(); }
non_null_pointer(non_null_pointer const& nnp) : _p(nnp._p) {}
non_null_pointer& operator=(T* p) { _p = p; die_if_null(); }
non_null_pointer& operator=(non_null_pointer const& nnp) { _p = nnp._p; }
T& operator*() { return *_p; }
T const& operator*() const { return *_p; }
T* operator->() { return _p; }
// Allow implicit conversion to T* for convenience
operator T*() const { return _p; }
// You also need to implement operators for +, -, +=, -=, ++, --
private:
T* _p;
void die_if_null() const {
if (!_p) { throw null_pointer_exception(); }
}
};
This might be useful on occasion -- a function taking a non_null_pointer<int> parameter certainly communicates more information to the caller than does a function taking int*.
Intrestingly, many answers here are a bit fuzzy or even beside the point (e.g. it's not because references cannot be zero or similar, in fact, you can easily construct an example where a reference is zero).
The real reason why re-setting a reference is not possible is rather simple.
Pointers enable you to do two things: To change the value behind the pointer (either through the -> or the * operator), and to change the pointer itself (direct assign =). Example:
int a;
int * p = &a;
Changing the value requires dereferencing: *p = 42;
Changing the pointer: p = 0;
References allow you to only change the value. Why? Since there is no other syntax to express the re-set. Example:
int a = 10;
int b = 20;
int & r = a;
r = b; // re-set r to b, or set a to 20?
In other words, it would be ambiguous if you were allowed to re-set a reference. It makes even more sense when passing by reference:
void foo(int & r)
{
int b = 20;
r = b; // re-set r to a? or set a to 20?
}
void main()
{
int a = 10;
foo(a);
}
Hope that helps :-)
It would probably have been less confusing to name C++ references "aliases"? As others have mentioned, references in C++ should be though of as the variable they refer to, not as a pointer/reference to the variable. As such, I can't think of a good reason they should be resettable.
when dealing with pointers, it often makes sense allowing null as a value (and otherwise, you probably want a reference instead). If you specifically want to disallow holding null, you could always code your own smart pointer type ;)
C++ references can sometimes be forced to be 0 with some compilers (it's just a bad idea to do so*, and it violates the standard*).
int &x = *((int*)0); // Illegal but some compilers accept it
EDIT: according to various people who know the standard much better than myself, the above code produces "undefined behavior". In at least some versions of GCC and Visual Studio, I've seen this do the expected thing: the equivalent of setting a pointer to NULL (and causes a NULL pointer exception when accessed).
You can't do this:
int theInt = 0;
int& refToTheInt = theInt;
int otherInt = 42;
refToTheInt = otherInt;
...for the same reason why secondInt and firstInt don't have the same value here:
int firstInt = 1;
int secondInt = 2;
secondInt = firstInt;
firstInt = 3;
assert( firstInt != secondInt );
This is not actually an answer, but a workaround for this limitation.
Basically, when you try to "rebind" a reference you are actually trying to use the same name to refer to a new value in the following context. In C++, this can be achieve by introducing a block scope.
In jalf's example
int i = 42;
int k = 43;
int& j = i;
//change i, or change j?
j = k;
if you want to change i, write it as above. However, if you want to change the meaning of j to mean k, you can do this:
int i = 42;
int k = 43;
int& j = i;
//change i, or change j?
//change j!
{
int& j = k;
//do what ever with j's new meaning
}
I would imagine that it is related to optimization.
Static optimization is much easier when you can know unambiguously what bit of memory a variable means. Pointers break this condition and re-setable reference would too.
Because sometimes things should not be re-pointable. (E.g., the reference to a Singleton.)
Because it's great in a function to know that your argument can't be null.
But mostly, because it allows use to have something that really is a pointer, but which acts like a local value object. C++ tries hard, to quote Stroustrup, to make class instances "do as the ints d". Passing an int by vaue is cheap, because an int fitss into a machine register. Classes are often bigger than ints, and passing them by value has significant overhead.
Being able to pass a pointer (which is often the size of an int, or maybe two ints) that "looks like" a value object allows us to write cleaner code, without the "implementation detail" of dereferences. And, along with operator overloading, it allows us to write classes use syntax similar to the syntax used with ints. In particular, it allows us to write template classes with syntax that can be equally applied to primitive, like ints, and classes (like a Complex number class).
And, with operator overloading especially, there are places were we should return an object, but again, it's much cheaper to return a pointer. Oncve again, returning a reference is our "out.
And pointers are hard. Not for you, maybe, and not to anyone that realizes a pointer is just the value of a memory address. But recalling my CS 101 class, they tripped up a number of students.
char* p = s; *p = *s; *p++ = *s++; i = ++*p;
can be confusing.
Heck, after 40 years of C, people still can't even agree if a pointer declaration should be:
char* p;
or
char *p;
I always wondered why they didn't make a reference assignment operator (say :=) for this.
Just to get on someone's nerves I wrote some code to change the target of a reference in a structure.
No, I do not recommend repeating my trick. It will break if ported to a sufficiently different architecture.
The fact that references in C++ are not nullable is a side-effect of them being just an alias.
I agree with the accepted answer.
But for constness, they behave much like pointers though.
struct A{
int y;
int& x;
A():y(0),x(y){}
};
int main(){
A a;
const A& ar=a;
ar.x++;
}
works.
See
Design reasons for the behavior of reference members of classes passed by const reference
There's a workaround if you want a member variable that's a reference and you want to be able to rebind it. While I find it useful and reliable, note that it uses some (very weak) assumptions on memory layout. It's up to you to decide whether it's within your coding standards.
#include <iostream>
struct Field_a_t
{
int& a_;
Field_a_t(int& a)
: a_(a) {}
Field_a_t& operator=(int& a)
{
// a_.~int(); // do this if you have a non-trivial destructor
new(this)Field_a_t(a);
}
};
struct MyType : Field_a_t
{
char c_;
MyType(int& a, char c)
: Field_a_t(a)
, c_(c) {}
};
int main()
{
int i = 1;
int j = 2;
MyType x(i, 'x');
std::cout << x.a_;
x.a_ = 3;
std::cout << i;
((Field_a_t&)x) = j;
std::cout << x.a_;
x.a_ = 4;
std::cout << j;
}
This is not very efficient as you need a separate type for each reassignable reference field and make them base classes; also, there's a weak assumption here that a class having a single reference type won't have a __vfptr or any other type_id-related field that could potentially destroy runtime bindings of MyType. All the compilers I know satisfy that condition (and it would make little sense not doing so).
Being half serious: IMHO to make them little more different from pointers ;) You know that you can write:
MyClass & c = *new MyClass();
If you could also later write:
c = *new MyClass("other")
would it make sense to have any references alongside with pointers?
MyClass * a = new MyClass();
MyClass & b = *new MyClass();
a = new MyClass("other");
b = *new MyClass("another");
I have searched and searched for an answer to this but can't find anything I actually "get".
I am very very new to c++ and can't get my head around the use of double, triple pointers etc.. What is the point of them?
Can anyone enlighten me
Honestly, in well-written C++ you should very rarely see a T** outside of library code. In fact, the more stars you have, the closer you are to winning an award of a certain nature.
That's not to say that a pointer-to-pointer is never called for; you may need to construct a pointer to a pointer for the same reason that you ever need to construct a pointer to any other type of object.
In particular, I might expect to see such a thing inside a data structure or algorithm implementation, when you're shuffling around dynamically allocated nodes, perhaps?
Generally, though, outside of this context, if you need to pass around a reference to a pointer, you'd do just that (i.e. T*&) rather than doubling up on pointers, and even that ought to be fairly rare.
On Stack Overflow you're going to see people doing ghastly things with pointers to arrays of dynamically allocated pointers to data, trying to implement the least efficient "2D vector" they can think of. Please don't be inspired by them.
In summary, your intuition is not without merit.
An important reason why you should/must know about pointer-to-pointer-... is that you sometimes have to interface with other languages (like C for instance) through some API (for instance the Windows API).
Those APIs often have functions that have an output-parameter that returns a pointer. However those other languages often don't have references or compatible (with C++) references. That's a situation when pointer-to-pointer is needed.
It's less used in c++. However, in C, it can be very useful. Say that you have a function that will malloc some random amount of memory and fill the memory with some stuff. It would be a pain to have to call a function to get the size you need to allocate and then call another function that will fill the memory. Instead you can use a double pointer. The double pointer allows the function to set the pointer to the memory location. There are some other things it can be used for but that's the best thing I can think of.
int func(char** mem){
*mem = malloc(50);
return 50;
}
int main(){
char* mem = NULL;
int size = func(&mem);
free(mem);
}
I am very very new to c++ and can't get my head around the use of double, triple pointers etc.. What is the point of them?
The trick to understanding pointers in C is simply to go back to the basics, which you were probably never taught. They are:
Variables store values of a particular type.
Pointers are a kind of value.
If x is a variable of type T then &x is a value of type T*.
If x evaluates to a value of type T* then *x is a variable of type T. More specifically...
... if x evaluates to a value of type T* that is equal to &a for some variable a of type T, then *x is an alias for a.
Now everything follows:
int x = 123;
x is a variable of type int. Its value is 123.
int* y = &x;
y is a variable of type int*. x is a variable of type int. So &x is a value of type int*. Therefore we can store &x in y.
*y = 456;
y evaluates to the contents of variable y. That's a value of type int*. Applying * to a value of type int* gives a variable of type int. Therefore we can assign 456 to it. What is *y? It is an alias for x. Therefore we have just assigned 456 to x.
int** z = &y;
What is z? It's a variable of type int**. What is &y? Since y is a variable of type int*, &y must be a value of type int**. Therefore we can assign it to z.
**z = 789;
What is **z? Work from the inside out. z evaluates to an int**. Therefore *z is a variable of type int*. It is an alias for y. Therefore this is the same as *y, and we already know what that is; it's an alias for x.
No really, what's the point?
Here, I have a piece of paper. It says 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC. Is that a house? No, it's a piece of paper with the address of a house written on it. But we can use that piece of paper to find the house.
Here, I have ten million pieces of paper, all numbered. Paper number 123456 says 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Is 123456 a house? No. Is it a piece of paper? No. But it is still enough information for me to find the house.
That's the point: often we need to refer to entities through multiple levels of indirection for convenience.
That said, double pointers are confusing and a sign that your algorithm is insufficiently abstract. Try to avoid them by using good design techniques.
A double-pointer, is simply a pointer to a pointer. A common usage is for arrays of character strings. Imagine the first function in just about every C/C++ program:
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
...
}
Which can also be written
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
...
}
The variable argv is a pointer to an array of pointers to char. This is a standard way of passing around arrays of C "strings". Why do that? I've seen it used for multi-language support, blocks of error strings, etc.
Don't forget that a pointer is just a number - the index of the memory "slot" inside a computer. That's it, nothing more. So a double-pointer is index of a piece of memory that just happens to hold another index to somewhere else. A mathematical join-the-dots if you like.
This is how I explained pointers to my kids:
Imagine the computer memory is a series of boxes. Each box has a number written on it, starting at zero, going up by 1, to however many bytes of memory there is. Say you have a pointer to some place in memory. This pointer is just the box number. My pointer is, say 4. I look into box #4. Inside is another number, this time it's 6. So now we look into box #6, and get the final thing we wanted. My original pointer (that said "4") was a double-pointer, because the content of its box was the index of another box, rather than being a final result.
It seems in recent times pointers themselves have become a pariah of programming. Back in the not-too-distant past, it was completely normal to pass around pointers to pointers. But with the proliferation of Java, and increasing use of pass-by-reference in C++, the fundamental understanding of pointers declined - particularly around when Java became established as a first-year computer science beginners language, over say Pascal and C.
I think a lot of the venom about pointers is because people just don't ever understand them properly. Things people don't understand get derided. So they became "too hard" and "too dangerous". I guess with even supposedly learned people advocating Smart Pointers, etc. these ideas are to be expected. But in reality there a very powerful programming tool. Honestly, pointers are the magic of programming, and after-all, they're just a number.
In many situations, a Foo*& is a replacement for a Foo**. In both cases, you have a pointer whose address can be modified.
Suppose you have an abstract non-value type and you need to return it, but the return value is taken up by the error code:
error_code get_foo( Foo** ppfoo )
or
error_code get_foo( Foo*& pfoo_out )
Now a function argument being mutable is rarely useful, so the ability to change where the outermost pointer ppFoo points at is rarely useful. However, a pointer is nullable -- so if get_foo's argument is optional, a pointer acts like an optional reference.
In this case, the return value is a raw pointer. If it returns an owned resource, it should usually be instead a std::unique_ptr<Foo>* -- a smart pointer at that level of indirection.
If instead, it is returning a pointer to something it does not share ownership of, then a raw pointer makes more sense.
There are other uses for Foo** besides these "crude out parameters". If you have a polymorphic non-value type, non-owning handles are Foo*, and the same reason why you'd want to have an int* you would want to have a Foo**.
Which then leads you to ask "why do you want an int*?" In modern C++ int* is a non-owning nullable mutable reference to an int. It behaves better when stored in a struct than a reference does (references in structs generate confusing semantics around assignment and copy, especially if mixed with non-references).
You could sometimes replace int* with std::reference_wrapper<int>, well std::optional<std::reference_wrapper<int>>, but note that is going to be 2x as large as a simple int*.
So there are legitimate reasons to use int*. Once you have that, you can legitimately use Foo** when you want a pointer to a non-value type. You can even get to int** by having a contiguous array of int*s you want to operate on.
Legitimately getting to three-star programmer gets harder. Now you need a legitimate reason to (say) want to pass a Foo** by indirection. Usually long before you reach that point, you should have considered abstracting and/or simplifying your code structure.
All of this ignores the most common reason; interacting with C APIs. C doesn't have unique_ptr, it doesn't have span. It tends to use primitive types instead of structs because structs require awkward function based access (no operator overloading).
So when C++ interacts with C, you sometimes get 0-3 more *s than the equivalent C++ code would.
The use is to have a pointer to a pointer, e.g., if you want to pass a pointer to a method by reference.
What real use does a double pointer have?
Here is practical example. Say you have a function and you want to send an array of string params to it (maybe you have a DLL you want to pass params to). This can look like this:
#include <iostream>
void printParams(const char **params, int size)
{
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
{
std::cout << params[i] << std::endl;
}
}
int main()
{
const char *params[] = { "param1", "param2", "param3" };
printParams(params, 3);
return 0;
}
You will be sending an array of const char pointers, each pointer pointing to the start of a null terminated C string. The compiler will decay your array into pointer at function argument, hence what you get is const char ** a pointer to first pointer of array of const char pointers. Since the array size is lost at this point, you will want to pass it as second argument.
One case where I've used it is a function manipulating a linked list, in C.
There is
struct node { struct node *next; ... };
for the list nodes, and
struct node *first;
to point to the first element. All the manipulation functions take a struct node **, because I can guarantee that this pointer is non-NULL even if the list is empty, and I don't need any special cases for insertion and deletion:
void link(struct node *new_node, struct node **list)
{
new_node->next = *list;
*list = new_node;
}
void unlink(struct node **prev_ptr)
{
*prev_ptr = (*prev_ptr)->next;
}
To insert at the beginning of the list, just pass a pointer to the first pointer, and it will do the right thing even if the value of first is NULL.
struct node *new_node = (struct node *)malloc(sizeof *new_node);
link(new_node, &first);
Multiple indirection is largely a holdover from C (which has neither reference nor container types). You shouldn't see multiple indirection that much in well-written C++, unless you're dealing with a legacy C library or something like that.
Having said that, multiple indirection falls out of some fairly common use cases.
In both C and C++, array expressions will "decay" from type "N-element array of T" to "pointer to T" under most circumstances1. So, assume an array definition like
T *a[N]; // for any type T
When you pass a to a function, like so:
foo( a );
the expression a will be converted from "N-element array of T *" to "pointer to T *", or T **, so what the function actually receives is
void foo( T **a ) { ... }
A second place they pop up is when you want a function to modify a parameter of pointer type, something like
void foo( T **ptr )
{
*ptr = new_value();
}
void bar( void )
{
T *val;
foo( &val );
}
Since C++ introduced references, you probably won't see that as often. You'll usually only see that when working with a C-based API.
You can also use multiple indirection to set up "jagged" arrays, but you can achieve the same thing with C++ containers for much less pain. But if you're feeling masochistic:
T **arr;
try
{
arr = new T *[rows];
for ( size_t i = 0; i < rows; i++ )
arr[i] = new T [size_for_row(i)];
}
catch ( std::bad_alloc& e )
{
...
}
But most of the time in C++, the only time you should see multiple indirection is when an array of pointers "decays" to a pointer expression itself.
The exceptions to this rule occur when the expression is the operand of the sizeof or unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize another array in a declaration.
In C++, if you want to pass a pointer as an out or in/out parameter, you pass it by reference:
int x;
void f(int *&p) { p = &x; }
But, a reference can't ("legally") be nullptr, so, if the pointer is optional, you need a pointer to a pointer:
void g(int **p) { if (p) *p = &x; }
Sure, since C++17 you have std::optional, but, the "double pointer" has been idiomatic C/C++ code for many decades, so should be OK. Also, the usage is not so nice, you either:
void h(std::optional<int*> &p) { if (p) *p = &x) }
which is kind of ugly at the call site, unless you already have a std::optional, or:
void u(std::optional<std::reference_wrapper<int*>> p) { if (p) p->get() = &x; }
which is not so nice in itself.
Also, some might argue that g is nicer to read at the call site:
f(p);
g(&p); // `&` indicates that `p` might change, to some folks
I'm new to the C++ community, and just have a quick question about how C++ passes variables by reference to functions.
When you want to pass a variable by reference in C++, you add an & to whatever argument you want to pass by reference. How come when you assign a value to a variable that is being passed by reference why do you say variable = value; instead of saying *variable = value?
void add_five_to_variable(int &value) {
// If passing by reference uses pointers,
// then why wouldn't you say *value += 5?
// Or does C++ do some behind the scene stuff here?
value += 5;
}
int main() {
int i = 1;
add_five_to_variable(i);
cout << i << endl; // i = 6
return 0;
}
If C++ is using pointers to do this with behind the scenes magic, why aren't dereferences needed like with pointers? Any insight would be much appreciated.
When you write,
int *p = ...;
*p = 3;
That is syntax for assigning 3 to the object referred to by the pointer p. When you write,
int &r = ...;
r = 3;
That is syntax for assigning 3 to the object referred to by the reference r. The syntax and the implementation are different. References are implemented using pointers (except when they're optimized out), but the syntax is different.
So you could say that the dereferencing happens automatically, when needed.
C++ uses pointers behind the scenes but hides all that complication from you. Passing by reference also enables you to avoid all the problems asssoicated with invalid pointers.
When you pass an object to a function by reference, you manipulate the object directly in the function, without referring to its address like with pointers. Thus, when manipulating this variable, you don't want to dereference it with the *variable syntax. This is good practice to pass objects by reference because:
A reference can't be redefined to point to another object
It can't be null. you have to pass a valid object of that type to the function
How the compiler achieves the "pass by reference" is not really relevant in your case.
The article in Wikipedia is a good ressource.
There are two questions in one, it seems:
one question is about syntax: the difference between pointer and reference
the other is about mechanics and implementation: the in-memory representation of a reference
Let's address the two separately.
Syntax of references and pointers
A pointer is, conceptually, a "sign" (as road sign) toward an object. It allows 2 kind of actions:
actions on the pointee (or object pointed to)
actions on the pointer itself
The operator* and operator-> allow you to access the pointee, to differenciate it from your accesses to the pointer itself.
A reference is not a "sign", it's an alias. For the duration of its life, come hell or high water, it will point to the same object, nothing you can do about it. Therefore, since you cannot access the reference itself, there is no point it bothering you with weird syntax * or ->. Ironically, not using weird syntax is called syntactic sugar.
Mechanics of a reference
The C++ Standard is silent on the implementation of references, it merely hints that if the compiler can it is allowed to remove them. For example, in the following case:
int main() {
int a = 0;
int& b = a;
b = 1;
return b;
}
A good compiler will realize that b is just a proxy for a, no room for doubts, and thus simply directly access a and optimize b out.
As you guessed, a likely representation of a reference is (under the hood) a pointer, but do not let it bother you, it does not affect the syntax or semantics. It does mean however that a number of woes of pointers (like access to objects that have been deleted for example) also affect references.
The explicit dereference is not required by design - that's for convenience. When you use . on a reference the compiler emits code necessary to access the real object - this will often include dereferencing a pointer, but that's done without requiring an explicit dereference in your code.
I was studying pointers references and came across different ways to feed in parameters. Can someone explain what each one actually means?
I think the first one is simple, it's that x is a copy of the parameter fed in so another variable is created on the stack.
As for the others I'm clueless.
void doSomething1(int x){
//code
}
void doSomething2(int *x){
//code
}
void doSomething3(int &x){
//code
}
void doSomething3(int const &x){
//code
}
I also see stuff like this when variables are declared. I don't understand the differences between them. I know that the first one will put 100 into the variable y on the stack. It won't create a new address or anything.
//example 1
int y = 100;
//example 2
int *y = 100;
//Example 3: epic confusion!
int *y = &z;
Question 1: How do I use these methods? When is it most appropriate?
Question 2: When do I declare variables in that way?
Examples would be great.
P.S. this is one the main reasons I didn't learn C++ as Java just has garbage collection. But now I have to get into C++.
//example 1
int y = 100;
//example 2
int *y = 100;
//Example 3: epic confusion!
int *y = &z;
I think the problem for most students is that in C++ both & and * have different meanings, depending on the context in which they are used.
If either of them appears after a type within an object declaration (T* or T&), they are type modifiers and change the type from plain T to a reference to a T (T&) or a pointer to a T (T*).
If they appear in front of an object (&obj or *obj), they are unary prefix operators invoked on the object. The prefix & returns the address of the object it is invoked for, * dereferences a pointer, iterator etc., yielding the value it references.
It doesn't help against confusion that the type modifiers apply to the object being declared, not the type. That is, T* a, b; defines a T* named a and a plain T named b, which is why many people prefer to write T *a, b; instead (note the placement of the type-modifying * adjacent the object being defined, instead of the type modified).
Also unhelpful is that the term "reference" is overloaded. For one thing it means a syntactic construct, as in T&. But there's also the broader meaning of a "reference" being something that refers to something else. In this sense, both a pointer T* and a reference (other meaning T&) are references, in that they reference some object. That comes into play when someone says that "a pointer references some object" or that a pointer is "dereferenced".
So in your specific cases, #1 defines a plain int, #2 defines a pointer to an int and initializes it with the address 100 (whatever lives there is probably best left untouched ), and #3 defines another pointer and initializes it with the address of an object z (necessarily an int, too).
A for how to pass objects to functions in C++, here is an old answer from me to that.
From Scott Myers - More Effective C++ -> 1
First, recognize that there is no such thing as a null reference. A reference must always refer to some object.Because a reference must refer to an object, C++ requires that references be initialized.
Pointers are subject to no such restriction. The fact that there is no such thing as a null reference implies that it can be more efficient to use references than to use pointers. That's because there's no need to test the validity of a reference before using it.
Another important difference between pointers and references is that pointers may be reassigned to refer to different objects. A reference, however, always refers to the object with which it is initialized
In general, you should use a pointer whenever you need to take into account the possibility that there's nothing to refer to (in which case you can set the pointer to null) or whenever you need to be able to refer to different things at different times (in which case you can change where the pointer points). You should use a reference whenever you know there will always be an object to refer to and you also know that once you're referring to that object, you'll never want to refer to anything else.
References, then, are the feature of choice when you know you have something to refer to, when you'll never want to refer to anything else, and when implementing operators whose syntactic requirements make the use of pointers undesirable. In all other cases, stick with pointers.
Read S.Lippmann's C++ Premier or any other good C++ book.
As for passing the parameters, generally when copying is cheap we pass by value. For mandatory out parameters we use references, for optional out parameters - pointers, for input parameters where copying is costly, we pass by const references
Thats really complicated topic. Please read here: http://www.goingware.com/tips/parameters/.
Also Scott Meiers "Effective C++" is a top book on such things.
void doSomething1(int x){
//code
}
This one pass the variable by value, whatever happens inside the function, the original variable doesn't change
void doSomething2(int *x){
//code
}
Here you pass a variable of type pointer to integer. So when accessing the number you should use *x for the value or x for the address
void doSomething3(int &x){
//code
}
Here is like the first one, but whatever happens inside the function, the original variable will be changed as well
int y = 100;
normal integer
//example 2
int *y = 100;
pointer to address 100
//Example 3: epic confusion!
int *y = &z;
pointer to the address of z
void doSomething1(int x){
//code
}
void doSomething2(int *x){
//code
}
void doSomething3(int &x){
//code
}
And i am really getting confused between them?
The first is using pass-by-value and the argument to the function will retain its original value after the call.
The later two are using pass-by-reference. Essentially they are two ways of achieving the same thing. The argument is not guarenteed to retain its original value after the call.
Most programmers prefer to pass large objects by const reference to improve the performance of their code and provide a constraint that the value will not change. This ensures the copy constructor is not called.
Your confusion might be due to the '&' operator having two meanings. The one you seem to be familiar with is the 'reference operator'. It is also used as the 'address operator'. In the example you give you are taking the address of z.
A good book to check out that covers all of this in detail is 'Accelerated C++' by Andrew Koening.
The best time to use those methods is when it's more efficient to pass around references as opposed to entire objects. Sometimes, some data structure operations are also faster using references (inserting into a linked list for example). The best way to understand pointers is to read about them and then write programs to use them (and compare them to their pass-by-value counterparts).
And for the record, knowledge of pointers makes you considerably more valuable in the workplace. (all too often, C++ programmers are the "mystics" of the office, with knowledge of how those magical boxes under the desks process code /semi-sarcasm)
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why are references not reseatable in C++
I am trying to more or less swap two reference variables (as practice, I could have swapped the actual variables). I tried doing this by making a temporary variable and making one of the references equal the other, but this got shot down by the compiler. Here is an example:
void Foo()
{
//code
int& ref1 = a;
int& ref2 = b;
int temp;
temp = ref1;
ref1 = ref2;
ref2 = temp;
//or, better yet
std::swap(ref1, ref2);
}
I got an error, and looked on the faq lite. It details that they cannot be reseated, but does not explain why. Why?
Here is a link to the Faq Lite for reference (<---, get it?).
Because there is no syntax to do it:
int x = 0;
int y = 1;
int & r = x;
Now if I say:
r = y;
I assign the value of y to x. If I wanted to reseat I would need some special syntax:
r #= y; // maybe?
As the main reason for using references is as parameters and return types of functions, where this is not an issue, it didn't seem to C++'s designers that this was a path worth going down.
A reference is an alias to object.
Alias can not be changed (we are not spies ;-)
Because references don't have an address of their own (if they do that is implementation dependent, and you can't access them with the & operator directly).
The & operator is used to get the address of the thing that the reference is referring to.
Whereas a pointer does have an address of its own and you can access it with the & operator.
int x = 4;
int *p = &x;
//p holds the address of x
//&p holds the address of p.
int &r = x;
//&r holds the address of x
And if something doesn't have an address of its own then it can't store a value inside of it. And if it can't store a value inside of it, then it can't be changed.
I think the parashift C++ FAQ on references says it best:
Important note: Even though a
reference is often implemented using
an address in the underlying assembly
language, please do not think of a
reference as a funny looking pointer
to an object. A reference is the
object. It is not a pointer to the
object, nor a copy of the object. It
is the object.
and again in FAQ 8.5 :
Unlike a pointer, once a reference is
bound to an object, it can not be
"reseated" to another object. The
reference itself isn't an object (it
has no identity; taking the address of
a reference gives you the address of
the referent; remember: the reference
is its referent).
Look at your code again:
temp = ref1;
ref2 = temp;
ref1 = ref2;
References are aliases. All operations that you do on the reference are performed on the object it references. In your code above, how should the compiler magically know that you aren't trying to assign the values to referenced variables, but are rather trying to change the reference itself? There's no syntax to indicate the difference between that, and, for example:
ref1 = 3;
which you'd normally expect to assign a value 3 to the object referenced by ref1.
In short, this is simply by design. If you want "reseatable" references, then you just use pointers (or, if you want to avoid accidential pointer arithmetic, boost::optional).
Unlike pointers, references are designed to guarantee that they always refer to an object. To meet this gaurantee, the compiler requires that all references be initialized in their declaration and disallows you from reassigning them.
Similar to pointers, reference variables allow you to access the same instance of an object through multiple locations - but unlike pointers, reference provide a greater level of safety.