convert from pointer to reference in C++ - c++

Question

I want to create an instance of a class using new, but I want to convert to reference for further usage other than using pointer. Currently I am using this line Foo& rf = *f; to convert explicitly, it seems a bit silly. Any better and more elegant ways to create a reference variable and referring a new created instance?
Here are some code to show what I am doing,
class Foo{
public:
Foo(){
}
void printValue() {
cout << "This is Foo object " << endl;
}
};
int main() {
Foo* f = new Foo();
Foo& rf = *f;
rf.printValue();
f -> printValue();
}

Answer 1

You can write this:
Foo* foo = new Foo();
Foo& fooRef = *foo;
in one line:
Foo& fooRef = *new Foo();
But, be aware, you should delete your allocated memory later anyway:
delete &fooRef;
I do not suggest you write code in this way, to avoid memory leaks. Look into this answer for further details. Choose smart pointers or containers when it possible.

Answer 2

... convert to reference for further usage other than using pointer.
I prefer references (and avoid pointers) deep in my code. Mostly because a nullptr can have special meaning (that a reference will not) that needs some thought to confirm, the next time I review the code.
My solution is to new the bigger-than-automatic-memory object to get a pointer at the appropriate level for lifetime. I then invoke the using methods or functions with the dereferenced pointer. This keeps the pointer (at the lifetime start, such as main) as is, and later still available for the delete.
// bigData used many places
void use1_of_Data (BigData_t& bigData, Small_t& sd) {
//... do something with data
}
void use2_of_Data (BigData_t& bigData, Small_t& sd) {
//... do something with data
}
//...
void use3_of_Data (BigData_t& bigData, Small_t& sd) {
//... do something with data
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
// ...
BigData_t* bd = new BigDta_t; // (sizeof(BigData_t) > autovar space)
Small_t sd;
{
assert(nullptr != bd);
// note - bd lasts the lifetime of program
use1_of_Data (*bd, sd);
use2_of_Data (*bd, sd);
//...
use3_of_Data (*bd, sd);
}
// what's new'd in main, is deleted in main
delete bd;
}

Answer 3

As others have said, if the Foo instance's non-heap contents aren't so large that the Foo instance itself needs to be allocated on the heap, it is better to just use the stack:
Foo foo;
foo.printValue();
However, if it does need to be allocated on the heap for some reason, then it's dangerous to hold the only reference to it in an ordinary pointer, since if an exception gets thrown by any code, it will never be deallocated. In fact, most modern C++ guidelines advise not using ordinary pointers to own data for this reason:
Foo * fooPtr = new Foo();
doSomething(); // If an exception is thrown here, the Foo never gets deallocated!
Foo& foo = *fooPtr;
foo.printValue(); // If printValue throws an exception, the Foo never gets deallocated!
delete foo;
If you aren't familiar with this sort of problem, I suggest googling RAII ("Resource Acquisition Is Initialization") which is an crucial concept to understand when programming in C++.
An easy way to implement RAII in a case like this is through use of a smart pointer (std::shared_ptr or std::unique_ptr).
An extra reference variable can still be helpful to avoid having to use the arrow operator to call functions on the smartpointer. I disagree with some other answerers who don't see value in also binding a local reference to a value already held in a local pointer. I prefer to use references whenever possible, since when I use a reference, I can be sure that the reference isn't null (references should always refer to actual objects), while when I use a pointer (even a smart pointer) I must always be careful that my code correctly handles the case where the pointer is null. When the pointer initialization occurs close to the pointer's use, this may not be a big deal, but when they are separated, it can become hard to trace through the code to be sure the pointer can't be null. A reference makes this self-documenting.
I think that it is often useful to first ensure that a pointer or smart pointer value can't be null, and then to bind a local reference to the pointed-to value, since I can then use the reference freely without having to worry at each use about the possibility of it being null:
std::unique_ptr<Foo> fooPtr = std::make_unique<Foo>(/* Foo constructor args go here */);
doSomething(); // Now if an exception thrown here, Foo gets deallocated.
Foo& foo = *fooPtr; // We know the pointer is not null here (it just
// got returned from make_unique which
// didn't throw a bad_alloc exception) so it's
// safe to bind a reference to it here.
// Also, this reference has lifetime less than the
// smart pointer, so will never outlive it.
// .. many lines of code later ..
foo.printValue(); // No need to worry about null here.
// If exception thrown here, the unwinding of the stack
// causes fooPtr to deallocate Foo.
// No need to call delete here.
// fooPtr will automatically deallocate Foo when it goes out of scope.

Answer 4

If we speak about elegance, may I suggest you to use a shared_ptr?
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class Foo{
public:
Foo(){
}
void printValue() {
cout << "This is Foo object " << endl;
}
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
Foo* f = new Foo();
std::shared_ptr<Foo> mySharedPtr(f);
f->printValue();
mySharedPtr.get()->printValue();
return 0;
}