I would like to clarify the differences between by value and by reference.
I drew a picture:
So, for passing by value, a copy of an identical object is created with a different reference, and the local variable is assigned the new reference, so to point to the new copy
How should I understand the following?
If the function modifies that value, the modifications appear also
within the scope of the calling function for both passing by value and by reference
I think much confusion is generated by not communicating what is meant by passed by reference. When some people say pass by reference they usually mean not the argument itself, but rather the object being referenced. Some other say that pass by reference means that the object can't be changed in the callee. Example:
struct Object {
int i;
};
void sample(Object* o) { // 1
o->i++;
}
void sample(Object const& o) { // 2
// nothing useful here :)
}
void sample(Object & o) { // 3
o.i++;
}
void sample1(Object o) { // 4
o.i++;
}
int main() {
Object obj = { 10 };
Object const obj_c = { 10 };
sample(&obj); // calls 1
sample(obj) // calls 3
sample(obj_c); // calls 2
sample1(obj); // calls 4
}
Some people would claim that 1 and 3 are pass by reference, while 2 would be pass by value. Another group of people say all but the last is pass by reference, because the object itself is not copied.
I would like to draw a definition of that here what i claim to be pass by reference. A general overview over it can be found here: Difference between pass by reference and pass by value. The first and last are pass by value, and the middle two are pass by reference:
sample(&obj);
// yields a `Object*`. Passes a *pointer* to the object by value.
// The caller can change the pointer (the parameter), but that
// won't change the temporary pointer created on the call side (the argument).
sample(obj)
// passes the object by *reference*. It denotes the object itself. The callee
// has got a reference parameter.
sample(obj_c);
// also passes *by reference*. the reference parameter references the
// same object like the argument expression.
sample1(obj);
// pass by value. The parameter object denotes a different object than the
// one passed in.
I vote for the following definition:
An argument (1.3.1) is passed by reference if and only if the corresponding parameter of the function that's called has reference type and the reference parameter binds directly to the argument expression (8.5.3/4). In all other cases, we have to do with pass by value.
That means that the following is pass by value:
void f1(Object const& o);
f1(Object()); // 1
void f2(int const& i);
f2(42); // 2
void f3(Object o);
f3(Object()); // 3
Object o1; f3(o1); // 4
void f4(Object *o);
Object o1; f4(&o1); // 5
1 is pass by value, because it's not directly bound. The implementation may copy the temporary and then bind that temporary to the reference. 2 is pass by value, because the implementation initializes a temporary of the literal and then binds to the reference. 3 is pass by value, because the parameter has not reference type. 4 is pass by value for the same reason. 5 is pass by value because the parameter has not got reference type. The following cases are pass by reference (by the rules of 8.5.3/4 and others):
void f1(Object *& op);
Object a; Object *op1 = &a; f1(op1); // 1
void f2(Object const& op);
Object b; f2(b); // 2
struct A { };
struct B { operator A&() { static A a; return a; } };
void f3(A &);
B b; f3(b); // passes the static a by reference
When passing by value:
void func(Object o);
and then calling
func(a);
you will construct an Object on the stack, and within the implementation of func it will be referenced by o. This might still be a shallow copy (the internals of a and o might point to the same data), so a might be changed. However if o is a deep copy of a, then a will not change.
When passing by reference:
void func2(Object& o);
and then calling
func2(a);
you will only be giving a new way to reference a. "a" and "o" are two names for the same object. Changing o inside func2 will make those changes visible to the caller, who knows the object by the name "a".
I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. It is a bit unclear. However, what might be confusing you is the following:
When passing by reference, a reference to the same object is passed to the function being called. Any changes to the object will be reflected in the original object and hence the caller will see it.
When passing by value, the copy constructor will be called. The default copy constructor will only do a shallow copy, hence, if the called function modifies an integer in the object, this will not be seen by the calling function, but if the function changes a data structure pointed to by a pointer within the object, then this will be seen by the caller due to the shallow copy.
I might have mis-understood your question, but I thought I would give it a stab anyway.
As I parse it, those words are wrong. It should read "If the function modifies that value, the modifications appear also within the scope of the calling function when passing by reference, but not when passing by value."
My understanding of the words "If the function modifies that value, the modifications appear also within the scope of the calling function for both passing by value and by reference" is that they are an error.
Modifications made in a called function are not in scope of the calling function when passing by value.
Either you have mistyped the quoted words or they have been extracted out of whatever context made what appears to be wrong, right.
Could you please ensure you have correctly quoted your source and if there are no errors there give more of the text surrounding that statement in the source material.
Related
When passing an object to a method or function is the object then passed by reference or value when the object is not initiated by the new keyword?
My_object a;
my_function(a);
Is the object then passed to the function as a reference or a value?
void my_function(My_object a){
}
Or do I need to add & ?
void my_function(My_object &a){
}
The way an object is passed depends on the function's parameters and not on the way the object was created.
My_object a means it's passed by value.
For passing by reference you need to use My_object& a. If you do not intend to change the object, you may prefer const My_object& a. This will avoid accidental overwrite.
I'm somewhat confused about the declaration of functions returning const references to temporaries.
In the following code
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
const string& foo() {
return string("foo");
}
string bar() {
return string("bar");
}
int main() {
const string& f = foo();
const string& b = bar();
cout << b;
}
What is the difference between methods foo and bar ?
Why does foo give me warning: returning reference to local temporary object [-Wreturn-stack-address]. Isn't a copy of the temporary created on const string& f = foo(); ?
string("foo") creates an object of type std::string containing the value "foo" locally in the function. This object will be destroyed at the end of the function. So returning the reference to that object will be invalid once the code leaves that function [1]. So in main, you will never have a valid reference to that string. The same would be true if you created a local variable inside foo.
The WHOLE point of returning a reference is that you don't make a copy, and initializing a reference (string &f = foo() is an initialization) will not create a copy of the original object - just another reference to the same object [which is already invalid by the time the code is back in main]. For many things, references can be seen as "a different name for the same thing".
The lifetime of the referred object (in other words, the actual object the "alias name" refers to) should ALWAYS have a lifetime longer than the reference variable (f in this case).
In the case of bar, the code will make a copy as part of the return string("bar");, since you are returning that object without taking its reference - in other words, by copying the object, so that works.
[1] pedantically, while still inside the function, but after the end of the code you have written within the function, in the bit of code the compiler introduced to deal with the destruction of objects created in the function.
Isn't a copy of the temporary created on const string& f = foo();
Where did you hear that?
Adding const to a reference often allows the lifetime of a temporary with which it's been initialised to be extended to the lifetime of the reference itself. There's never a copy.
Even that's not the case here, though. The object you're binding to the reference goes out of scope at the end of the function and that takes precedence over everything else.
You're returning a dangling reference; period.
Why does foo give me warning: returning reference to local temporary
object [-Wreturn-stack-address].
You are creating a temporary string object inside foo(), and you are returning a reference to that object which will immediately go out of scope (dangling reference).
const string& foo() {
return string("foo"); // returns constant reference to temporary object
} // object goes out of scope
bar() is quite different:
string bar() {
return string("bar"); // returns a copy of temporary string
}
...
const string& b = bar(); // reference an rvalue string
What is the difference between methods foo and bar ?
foo() returns a constant (dangling) reference while bar() returns a copy of a temporary string object.
In both of the cases, a string object is initialized and allocated on the stack.
After returning from the function, the memory segment which contains it becomes irrelevant, and its content may be overridden.
The difference between the functions:
bar function return a copy of the string instance which is created inside it.
foo function returns a reference to the string instance which is created inside it.
In other words, it returns an implicit pointer to its return value, which resides in a temporary memory segment - and that's the reason for your warning.
I would like to clarify the differences between by value and by reference.
I drew a picture:
So, for passing by value, a copy of an identical object is created with a different reference, and the local variable is assigned the new reference, so to point to the new copy
How should I understand the following?
If the function modifies that value, the modifications appear also
within the scope of the calling function for both passing by value and by reference
I think much confusion is generated by not communicating what is meant by passed by reference. When some people say pass by reference they usually mean not the argument itself, but rather the object being referenced. Some other say that pass by reference means that the object can't be changed in the callee. Example:
struct Object {
int i;
};
void sample(Object* o) { // 1
o->i++;
}
void sample(Object const& o) { // 2
// nothing useful here :)
}
void sample(Object & o) { // 3
o.i++;
}
void sample1(Object o) { // 4
o.i++;
}
int main() {
Object obj = { 10 };
Object const obj_c = { 10 };
sample(&obj); // calls 1
sample(obj) // calls 3
sample(obj_c); // calls 2
sample1(obj); // calls 4
}
Some people would claim that 1 and 3 are pass by reference, while 2 would be pass by value. Another group of people say all but the last is pass by reference, because the object itself is not copied.
I would like to draw a definition of that here what i claim to be pass by reference. A general overview over it can be found here: Difference between pass by reference and pass by value. The first and last are pass by value, and the middle two are pass by reference:
sample(&obj);
// yields a `Object*`. Passes a *pointer* to the object by value.
// The caller can change the pointer (the parameter), but that
// won't change the temporary pointer created on the call side (the argument).
sample(obj)
// passes the object by *reference*. It denotes the object itself. The callee
// has got a reference parameter.
sample(obj_c);
// also passes *by reference*. the reference parameter references the
// same object like the argument expression.
sample1(obj);
// pass by value. The parameter object denotes a different object than the
// one passed in.
I vote for the following definition:
An argument (1.3.1) is passed by reference if and only if the corresponding parameter of the function that's called has reference type and the reference parameter binds directly to the argument expression (8.5.3/4). In all other cases, we have to do with pass by value.
That means that the following is pass by value:
void f1(Object const& o);
f1(Object()); // 1
void f2(int const& i);
f2(42); // 2
void f3(Object o);
f3(Object()); // 3
Object o1; f3(o1); // 4
void f4(Object *o);
Object o1; f4(&o1); // 5
1 is pass by value, because it's not directly bound. The implementation may copy the temporary and then bind that temporary to the reference. 2 is pass by value, because the implementation initializes a temporary of the literal and then binds to the reference. 3 is pass by value, because the parameter has not reference type. 4 is pass by value for the same reason. 5 is pass by value because the parameter has not got reference type. The following cases are pass by reference (by the rules of 8.5.3/4 and others):
void f1(Object *& op);
Object a; Object *op1 = &a; f1(op1); // 1
void f2(Object const& op);
Object b; f2(b); // 2
struct A { };
struct B { operator A&() { static A a; return a; } };
void f3(A &);
B b; f3(b); // passes the static a by reference
When passing by value:
void func(Object o);
and then calling
func(a);
you will construct an Object on the stack, and within the implementation of func it will be referenced by o. This might still be a shallow copy (the internals of a and o might point to the same data), so a might be changed. However if o is a deep copy of a, then a will not change.
When passing by reference:
void func2(Object& o);
and then calling
func2(a);
you will only be giving a new way to reference a. "a" and "o" are two names for the same object. Changing o inside func2 will make those changes visible to the caller, who knows the object by the name "a".
I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. It is a bit unclear. However, what might be confusing you is the following:
When passing by reference, a reference to the same object is passed to the function being called. Any changes to the object will be reflected in the original object and hence the caller will see it.
When passing by value, the copy constructor will be called. The default copy constructor will only do a shallow copy, hence, if the called function modifies an integer in the object, this will not be seen by the calling function, but if the function changes a data structure pointed to by a pointer within the object, then this will be seen by the caller due to the shallow copy.
I might have mis-understood your question, but I thought I would give it a stab anyway.
As I parse it, those words are wrong. It should read "If the function modifies that value, the modifications appear also within the scope of the calling function when passing by reference, but not when passing by value."
My understanding of the words "If the function modifies that value, the modifications appear also within the scope of the calling function for both passing by value and by reference" is that they are an error.
Modifications made in a called function are not in scope of the calling function when passing by value.
Either you have mistyped the quoted words or they have been extracted out of whatever context made what appears to be wrong, right.
Could you please ensure you have correctly quoted your source and if there are no errors there give more of the text surrounding that statement in the source material.
I am new to C++ programming, but I have experience in Java. I need guidance on how to pass objects to functions in C++.
Do I need to pass pointers, references, or non-pointer and non-reference values? I remember in Java there are no such issues since we pass just the variable that holds reference to the objects.
It would be great if you could also explain where to use each of those options.
Rules of thumb for C++11:
Pass by value, except when
you do not need ownership of the object and a simple alias will do, in which case you pass by const reference,
you must mutate the object, in which case, use pass by a non-const lvalue reference,
you pass objects of derived classes as base classes, in which case you need to pass by reference. (Use the previous rules to determine whether to pass by const reference or not.)
Passing by pointer is virtually never advised. Optional parameters are best expressed as a std::optional (boost::optional for older std libs), and aliasing is done fine by reference.
C++11's move semantics make passing and returning by value much more attractive even for complex objects.
Rules of thumb for C++03:
Pass arguments by const reference, except when
they are to be changed inside the function and such changes should be reflected outside, in which case you pass by non-const reference
the function should be callable without any argument, in which case you pass by pointer, so that users can pass NULL/0/nullptr instead; apply the previous rule to determine whether you should pass by a pointer to a const argument
they are of built-in types, which can be passed by copy
they are to be changed inside the function and such changes should not be reflected outside, in which case you can pass by copy (an alternative would be to pass according to the previous rules and make a copy inside of the function)
(here, "pass by value" is called "pass by copy", because passing by value always creates a copy in C++03)
There's more to this, but these few beginner's rules will get you quite far.
There are some differences in calling conventions in C++ and Java. In C++ there are technically speaking only two conventions: pass-by-value and pass-by-reference, with some literature including a third pass-by-pointer convention (that is actually pass-by-value of a pointer type). On top of that, you can add const-ness to the type of the argument, enhancing the semantics.
Pass by reference
Passing by reference means that the function will conceptually receive your object instance and not a copy of it. The reference is conceptually an alias to the object that was used in the calling context, and cannot be null. All operations performed inside the function apply to the object outside the function. This convention is not available in Java or C.
Pass by value (and pass-by-pointer)
The compiler will generate a copy of the object in the calling context and use that copy inside the function. All operations performed inside the function are done to the copy, not the external element. This is the convention for primitive types in Java.
An special version of it is passing a pointer (address-of the object) into a function. The function receives the pointer, and any and all operations applied to the pointer itself are applied to the copy (pointer), on the other hand, operations applied to the dereferenced pointer will apply to the object instance at that memory location, so the function can have side effects. The effect of using pass-by-value of a pointer to the object will allow the internal function to modify external values, as with pass-by-reference and will also allow for optional values (pass a null pointer).
This is the convention used in C when a function needs to modify an external variable, and the convention used in Java with reference types: the reference is copied, but the referred object is the same: changes to the reference/pointer are not visible outside the function, but changes to the pointed memory are.
Adding const to the equation
In C++ you can assign constant-ness to objects when defining variables, pointers and references at different levels. You can declare a variable to be constant, you can declare a reference to a constant instance, and you can define all pointers to constant objects, constant pointers to mutable objects and constant pointers to constant elements. Conversely in Java you can only define one level of constant-ness (final keyword): that of the variable (instance for primitive types, reference for reference types), but you cannot define a reference to an immutable element (unless the class itself is immutable).
This is extensively used in C++ calling conventions. When the objects are small you can pass the object by value. The compiler will generate a copy, but that copy is not an expensive operation. For any other type, if the function will not change the object, you can pass a reference to a constant instance (usually called constant reference) of the type. This will not copy the object, but pass it into the function. But at the same time the compiler will guarantee that the object is not changed inside the function.
Rules of thumb
This are some basic rules to follow:
Prefer pass-by-value for primitive types
Prefer pass-by-reference with references to constant for other types
If the function needs to modify the argument use pass-by-reference
If the argument is optional, use pass-by-pointer (to constant if the optional value should not be modified)
There are other small deviations from these rules, the first of which is handling ownership of an object. When an object is dynamically allocated with new, it must be deallocated with delete (or the [] versions thereof). The object or function that is responsible for the destruction of the object is considered the owner of the resource. When a dynamically allocated object is created in a piece of code, but the ownership is transfered to a different element it is usually done with pass-by-pointer semantics, or if possible with smart pointers.
Side note
It is important to insist in the importance of the difference between C++ and Java references. In C++ references are conceptually the instance of the object, not an accessor to it. The simplest example is implementing a swap function:
// C++
class Type; // defined somewhere before, with the appropriate operations
void swap( Type & a, Type & b ) {
Type tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
}
int main() {
Type a, b;
Type old_a = a, old_b = b;
swap( a, b );
assert( a == old_b );
assert( b == old_a );
}
The swap function above changes both its arguments through the use of references. The closest code in Java:
public class C {
// ...
public static void swap( C a, C b ) {
C tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
}
public static void main( String args[] ) {
C a = new C();
C b = new C();
C old_a = a;
C old_b = b;
swap( a, b );
// a and b remain unchanged a==old_a, and b==old_b
}
}
The Java version of the code will modify the copies of the references internally, but will not modify the actual objects externally. Java references are C pointers without pointer arithmetic that get passed by value into functions.
There are several cases to consider.
Parameter modified ("out" and "in/out" parameters)
void modifies(T ¶m);
// vs
void modifies(T *param);
This case is mostly about style: do you want the code to look like call(obj) or call(&obj)? However, there are two points where the difference matters: the optional case, below, and you want to use a reference when overloading operators.
...and optional
void modifies(T *param=0); // default value optional, too
// vs
void modifies();
void modifies(T ¶m);
Parameter not modified
void uses(T const ¶m);
// vs
void uses(T param);
This is the interesting case. The rule of thumb is "cheap to copy" types are passed by value — these are generally small types (but not always) — while others are passed by const ref. However, if you need to make a copy within your function regardless, you should pass by value. (Yes, this exposes a bit of implementation detail. C'est le C++.)
...and optional
void uses(T const *param=0); // default value optional, too
// vs
void uses();
void uses(T const ¶m); // or optional(T param)
There's the least difference here between all situations, so choose whichever makes your life easiest.
Const by value is an implementation detail
void f(T);
void f(T const);
These declarations are actually the exact same function! When passing by value, const is purely an implementation detail. Try it out:
void f(int);
void f(int const) { /* implements above function, not an overload */ }
typedef void NC(int); // typedefing function types
typedef void C(int const);
NC *nc = &f; // nc is a function pointer
C *c = nc; // C and NC are identical types
Pass by value:
void func (vector v)
Pass variables by value when the function needs complete isolation from the environment i.e. to prevent the function from modifying the original variable as well as to prevent other threads from modifying its value while the function is being executed.
The downside is the CPU cycles and extra memory spent to copy the object.
Pass by const reference:
void func (const vector& v);
This form emulates pass-by-value behavior while removing the copying overhead. The function gets read access to the original object, but cannot modify its value.
The downside is thread safety: any change made to the original object by another thread will show up inside the function while it's still executing.
Pass by non-const reference:
void func (vector& v)
Use this when the function has to write back some value to the variable, which will ultimately get used by the caller.
Just like the const reference case, this is not thread-safe.
Pass by const pointer:
void func (const vector* vp);
Functionally same as pass by const-reference except for the different syntax, plus the fact that the calling function can pass NULL pointer to indicate it has no valid data to pass.
Not thread-safe.
Pass by non-const pointer:
void func (vector* vp);
Similar to non-const reference. The caller typically sets the variable to NULL when the function is not supposed to write back a value. This convention is seen in many glibc APIs. Example:
void func (string* str, /* ... */) {
if (str != NULL) {
*str = some_value; // assign to *str only if it's non-null
}
}
Just like all pass by reference/pointer, not thread-safe.
Since no one mentioned I am adding on it, When you pass a object to a function in c++ the default copy constructor of the object is called if you dont have one which creates a clone of the object and then pass it to the method, so when you change the object values that will reflect on the copy of the object instead of the original object, that is the problem in c++, So if you make all the class attributes to be pointers, then the copy constructors will copy the addresses of the pointer attributes , so when the method invocations on the object which manipulates the values stored in pointer attributes addresses, the changes also reflect in the original object which is passed as a parameter, so this can behave same a Java but dont forget that all your class attributes must be pointers, also you should change the values of pointers, will be much clear with code explanation.
Class CPlusPlusJavaFunctionality {
public:
CPlusPlusJavaFunctionality(){
attribute = new int;
*attribute = value;
}
void setValue(int value){
*attribute = value;
}
void getValue(){
return *attribute;
}
~ CPlusPlusJavaFuncitonality(){
delete(attribute);
}
private:
int *attribute;
}
void changeObjectAttribute(CPlusPlusJavaFunctionality obj, int value){
int* prt = obj.attribute;
*ptr = value;
}
int main(){
CPlusPlusJavaFunctionality obj;
obj.setValue(10);
cout<< obj.getValue(); //output: 10
changeObjectAttribute(obj, 15);
cout<< obj.getValue(); //output: 15
}
But this is not good idea as you will be ending up writing lot of code involving with pointers, which are prone for memory leaks and do not forget to call destructors. And to avoid this c++ have copy constructors where you will create new memory when the objects containing pointers are passed to function arguments which will stop manipulating other objects data, Java does pass by value and value is reference, so it do not require copy constructors.
Do I need to pass pointers, references, or non-pointer and non-reference values?
This is a question that matters when writing a function and choosing the types of the parameters it takes. That choice will affect how the function is called and it depends on a few things.
The simplest option is to pass objects by value. This basically creates a copy of the object in the function, which has many advantages. But sometimes copying is costly, in which case a constant reference, const&, is usually best. And sometimes you need your object to be changed by the function. Then a non-constant reference, &, is needed.
For guidance on the choice of parameter types, see the Functions section of the C++ Core Guidelines, starting with F.15. As a general rule, try to avoid raw pointers, *.
There are three methods of passing an object to a function as a parameter:
Pass by reference
pass by value
adding constant in parameter
Go through the following example:
class Sample
{
public:
int *ptr;
int mVar;
Sample(int i)
{
mVar = 4;
ptr = new int(i);
}
~Sample()
{
delete ptr;
}
void PrintVal()
{
cout << "The value of the pointer is " << *ptr << endl
<< "The value of the variable is " << mVar;
}
};
void SomeFunc(Sample x)
{
cout << "Say i am in someFunc " << endl;
}
int main()
{
Sample s1= 10;
SomeFunc(s1);
s1.PrintVal();
char ch;
cin >> ch;
}
Output:
Say i am in someFunc
The value of the pointer is -17891602
The value of the variable is 4
The following are the ways to pass a arguments/parameters to function in C++.
1. by value.
// passing parameters by value . . .
void foo(int x)
{
x = 6;
}
2. by reference.
// passing parameters by reference . . .
void foo(const int &x) // x is a const reference
{
x = 6;
}
// passing parameters by const reference . . .
void foo(const int &x) // x is a const reference
{
x = 6; // compile error: a const reference cannot have its value changed!
}
3. by object.
class abc
{
display()
{
cout<<"Class abc";
}
}
// pass object by value
void show(abc S)
{
cout<<S.display();
}
// pass object by reference
void show(abc& S)
{
cout<<S.display();
}
I would like to clarify the differences between by value and by reference.
I drew a picture:
So, for passing by value, a copy of an identical object is created with a different reference, and the local variable is assigned the new reference, so to point to the new copy
How should I understand the following?
If the function modifies that value, the modifications appear also
within the scope of the calling function for both passing by value and by reference
I think much confusion is generated by not communicating what is meant by passed by reference. When some people say pass by reference they usually mean not the argument itself, but rather the object being referenced. Some other say that pass by reference means that the object can't be changed in the callee. Example:
struct Object {
int i;
};
void sample(Object* o) { // 1
o->i++;
}
void sample(Object const& o) { // 2
// nothing useful here :)
}
void sample(Object & o) { // 3
o.i++;
}
void sample1(Object o) { // 4
o.i++;
}
int main() {
Object obj = { 10 };
Object const obj_c = { 10 };
sample(&obj); // calls 1
sample(obj) // calls 3
sample(obj_c); // calls 2
sample1(obj); // calls 4
}
Some people would claim that 1 and 3 are pass by reference, while 2 would be pass by value. Another group of people say all but the last is pass by reference, because the object itself is not copied.
I would like to draw a definition of that here what i claim to be pass by reference. A general overview over it can be found here: Difference between pass by reference and pass by value. The first and last are pass by value, and the middle two are pass by reference:
sample(&obj);
// yields a `Object*`. Passes a *pointer* to the object by value.
// The caller can change the pointer (the parameter), but that
// won't change the temporary pointer created on the call side (the argument).
sample(obj)
// passes the object by *reference*. It denotes the object itself. The callee
// has got a reference parameter.
sample(obj_c);
// also passes *by reference*. the reference parameter references the
// same object like the argument expression.
sample1(obj);
// pass by value. The parameter object denotes a different object than the
// one passed in.
I vote for the following definition:
An argument (1.3.1) is passed by reference if and only if the corresponding parameter of the function that's called has reference type and the reference parameter binds directly to the argument expression (8.5.3/4). In all other cases, we have to do with pass by value.
That means that the following is pass by value:
void f1(Object const& o);
f1(Object()); // 1
void f2(int const& i);
f2(42); // 2
void f3(Object o);
f3(Object()); // 3
Object o1; f3(o1); // 4
void f4(Object *o);
Object o1; f4(&o1); // 5
1 is pass by value, because it's not directly bound. The implementation may copy the temporary and then bind that temporary to the reference. 2 is pass by value, because the implementation initializes a temporary of the literal and then binds to the reference. 3 is pass by value, because the parameter has not reference type. 4 is pass by value for the same reason. 5 is pass by value because the parameter has not got reference type. The following cases are pass by reference (by the rules of 8.5.3/4 and others):
void f1(Object *& op);
Object a; Object *op1 = &a; f1(op1); // 1
void f2(Object const& op);
Object b; f2(b); // 2
struct A { };
struct B { operator A&() { static A a; return a; } };
void f3(A &);
B b; f3(b); // passes the static a by reference
When passing by value:
void func(Object o);
and then calling
func(a);
you will construct an Object on the stack, and within the implementation of func it will be referenced by o. This might still be a shallow copy (the internals of a and o might point to the same data), so a might be changed. However if o is a deep copy of a, then a will not change.
When passing by reference:
void func2(Object& o);
and then calling
func2(a);
you will only be giving a new way to reference a. "a" and "o" are two names for the same object. Changing o inside func2 will make those changes visible to the caller, who knows the object by the name "a".
I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. It is a bit unclear. However, what might be confusing you is the following:
When passing by reference, a reference to the same object is passed to the function being called. Any changes to the object will be reflected in the original object and hence the caller will see it.
When passing by value, the copy constructor will be called. The default copy constructor will only do a shallow copy, hence, if the called function modifies an integer in the object, this will not be seen by the calling function, but if the function changes a data structure pointed to by a pointer within the object, then this will be seen by the caller due to the shallow copy.
I might have mis-understood your question, but I thought I would give it a stab anyway.
As I parse it, those words are wrong. It should read "If the function modifies that value, the modifications appear also within the scope of the calling function when passing by reference, but not when passing by value."
My understanding of the words "If the function modifies that value, the modifications appear also within the scope of the calling function for both passing by value and by reference" is that they are an error.
Modifications made in a called function are not in scope of the calling function when passing by value.
Either you have mistyped the quoted words or they have been extracted out of whatever context made what appears to be wrong, right.
Could you please ensure you have correctly quoted your source and if there are no errors there give more of the text surrounding that statement in the source material.