until there I trusted that method like
bool solverMethod::buildSimplex(double** simplex_ , double* funcEvals_, double* initPt_)
{
// things
}
would change values for simplex, funcEvals_, initPt_ in the method where it is called (passage by pointer). Am I wrong? How to put it then?
thanks and regards and apologizes for simple question.
This is maybe not as much an answer as it is a general explanation of pointers, references and reference semantics.
A function is said to have reference semantics if it can change the argument objects that are passed to it. For example, the following swap function has reference semantics if it exchanges the values:
int x = 4;
int y = 8;
swap(x, y);
assert(x == 8 && y == 4);
The question is how you implement reference semantics. C++ has a native reference type that makes this very natural:
void swap(int & a, int & b) { int t = a; a = b; b = t; }
By contrast, C does not have such a native feature, and every object in C is passed by value. However, C has a different feature that can be used to implement reference semantics, namely pointers: For every type T, there is a related type T*, a value of which can be obtained by taking the address-of an object of type T: int x; int * p = &x;. Now you can pass those pointer objects around by value and use them to access the original object to which they point. Notice that we are passing the pointers by value!
void c_swap(int * p, int * q) { int t = *p; *p = *q; *q = t; }
We have to call the function differently: swap(&x, &y). Thus in C you can always tell whether an argument is being modified, because the only way to do this is by passing its address to a function. In C++, you have to know the actual function signature to know whether reference or value semantics are in place.
Related
I'm learning C and I'm still not sure if I understood the difference between & and * yet.
Allow me to try to explain it:
int a; // Declares a variable
int *b; // Declares a pointer
int &c; // Not possible
a = 10;
b = &a; // b gets the address of a
*b = 20; // a now has the value 20
I got these, but then it becomes confusing.
void funct(int a) // A declaration of a function, a is declared
void funct(int *a) // a is declared as a pointer
void funct(int &a) // a now receives only pointers (address)
funct(a) // Creates a copy of a
funct(*a) // Uses a pointer, can create a pointer of a pointer in some cases
funct(&a) // Sends an address of a pointer
So, both funct(*a) and funct(&a) are correct, right? What's the difference?
* and & as type modifiers
int i declares an int.
int* p declares a pointer to an int.
int& r = i declares a reference to an int, and initializes it to refer to i.
C++ only. Note that references must be assigned at initialization, therefore int& r; is not possible.
Similarly:
void foo(int i) declares a function taking an int (by value, i.e. as a copy).
void foo(int* p) declares a function taking a pointer to an int.
void foo(int& r) declares a function taking an int by reference. (C++ only)
* and & as operators
foo(i) calls foo(int). The parameter is passed as a copy.
foo(*p) dereferences the int pointer p and calls foo(int) with the int pointed to by p.
foo(&i) takes the address of the int i and calls foo(int*) with that address.
(tl;dr) So in conclusion, depending on the context:
* can be either the dereference operator or part of the pointer declaration syntax.
& can be either the address-of operator or (in C++) part of the reference declaration syntax.
Note that * may also be the multiplication operator, and & may also be the bitwise AND operator.
funct(int a)
Creates a copy of a
funct(int* a)
Takes a pointer to an int as input. But makes a copy of the pointer.
funct(int& a)
Takes an int, but by reference. a is now the exact same int that was given. Not a copy. Not a pointer.
void funct(int &a) declares a function that takes a reference. A reference is conceptually a pointer in that the function can modify the variable that's passed in, but is syntactically used like a value (so you don't have to de-reference it all the time to use it).
Originally in C there were pointers and no references. Very often though we just want to access a value without copying it and the fact that we're passing around an address and not the actual value is an unimportant detail.
C++ introduced references to abstract away the plumbing of pointers. If you want to "show" a value to a function in C++ then references are preferable. The function is guaranteed that a reference is not null and can access it as if it were the value itself. Pointers are still necessary for other purposes, for example, you can "re-aim" a pointer or delete with a pointer but you can't do so with a reference.
Their functionality does overlap and without a bit of history it should confuse you that we have both.
So the answer to your direct question is that very often there is no difference. That said, f(int*) can be useful if you want the function to be able to check if the pointer is null. If you're using C then pointers are the only option.
The meaning of * is dependent on context. When in a data or function argument declaration, it is a datatype qualifier, not an operator int* is a datatype in itself. For this reason it is useful perhaps to write:
int* x ;
rather than:
int *x ;
They are identical, but the first form emphasises that it the * is part of the type name, and visually distinguishes it from usage as dereference operator.
When applied to an instantiated pointer variable, it is the dereference operator, and yields the the value pointed to.
& in C is only an operator, it yields the address (or pointer to) of an object. It cannot be used in a declaration. In C++ it is a type qualifier for a reference which is similar to a pointer but has more restrictive behaviour and is therefore often safer.
Your suggestion in the comment here:
funct(&a) // Sends an address of a pointer
is not correct. The address of a is passed; that would only be "address of a pointer" is a itself is a pointer. A pointer is an address. The type of an address of a pointer to int would be int** (a pointer to a pointer).
Perhaps it is necessary to explain the fundamentals of pointer and value variables? A pointer describes the location in memory of a variable, while a value describes the content of a memory location.
<typename>* is a pointer-to-<typename> data type.
&*<value-variable> yields the address or location of <variable> (i.e. a pointer to <variable>),
**<pointer-variable> dereferences a pointer to yield the the value at the address represented by the pointer.
So given for example:
int a = 10 ;
int* pa = &a ;
then
*pa == 10
When you do func(&a) that's called a "call by reference" that means your parameter "a" can actually be modified within the function and any changes made will be visible to the calling program.
This is a useful way if you want to return multiple values from a function for example:
int twoValues(int &x)
{
int y = x * 2;
x = x + 10;
return y;
}
now if you call this function from your main program like this:
int A, B;
B = 5;
A = twoValues(B);
This will result in:
A holding the value 10 (which is 5 * 2)
and B will hold the value 15 (which is 5 + 10).
If you didn't have the & sign in the function signature, any changes you make to the parameter passed to the function "twoValues" would only be visible inside that function but as far as the calling program (e.g. main) is concerned, they will be the same.
Now calling a function with a pointer parameter is most useful when you want to pass an array of values or a list. Example:
float average ( int *list, int size_of_list)
{
float sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < size_of_list; i++)
{
sum += list[i];
}
return (sum/size_of_list);
}
note that the size_of_list parameter is simply the number of elements in the array you are passing (not size in bytes).
I hope this helps.
C++ is different from c in many aspects and references is a part of it.
In terms of c++ context:
void funct(int *a) // a is declared as a pointer
This corelates to the use of pointers in c..so, you can compare this feature to that of c.
void funct(int &a) // a now receives only pointers (address)
This would lead to the reference usage in c++...
you cannot corelate this to that of c..
Here is a good q&a clarifying differences between these two.
What are the differences between a pointer variable and a reference variable in C++?
consider the below code
int& func1() {
int x = 2;
return x;
}
int& func2(int &x) {
return x;
}
int main() {
int x = func1();
cout<<"\n : "<<x;
int y = 3;
x = func2(y);
cout<<"\n : "<<x<<"\n";
}
output:
: 2
: 3
The code is working absolutely fine , but I have few doubts that I have listed below:
In func1() I have returned a non_reference variable "x" but the
return type is reference to an int, so how is the conversion
happening and what part of "x" function is actually returning.
In func1() "x" is returned as reference but being a stack variable how the reference
of x can be returned , I mean it will have no significance after the completion ( I
am relating this point to the logic " Functions should not return the pointers whose
memory is allocated in statically").
In func1() it is returning a non refrence variable "x" as refrence
to an int and in func2() it is returning a refernce variable "x" as
refrence to an int. As both "x" are of different type but why
return type is same..
I am confused because I am trying t relate C++ with c as in that everything is clear but here majorily due to lack of memory layout description of refrence variable, so if some could tell about that also then it will be very helpful to me
In func1, what you are returning is a reference to something. This something is x, which is local to func1, whose lifetime ends upon returning. Then, in main, you assign the contents of the referred-to variable (x of func1, which is eating dandelions by the roots) to initialize main's local variable x. This is undefined behaviour, which means that the program is allowed to interpret this as anything it wants, formatting your hard drive or anything. (most probably, func1 returned the pointer to the variable of the called stack frame, which probably still contains the right value, because why bother erasing the values on the stack when they will be crushed by the next function call anyway?) Anyway, would the program be compiled with other optimization options, it may give another answer.
In func2, what you are returning is a reference to something. This something is what is referred-to by x, which refers to main's y. Then, you assign to main's x the value of the referred-to variable, which is y.
With regards to your question of the memory layout of references, in C, pointers are addresses in memory. Period. No escape. In C++, references are a higher-level mechanism where you "refer to something", "talk about something", "look it's me right there". They are perfectly implementable as plain pointers. But as a language concept, they are a bit more amenable to be optimized away, because they are immutable. (Once a reference is set, it cannot be changed. And it refers to something -- even an object at an invalid memory location) That's why the Standard does not specify storage for references. For freedom of optimization.
UPDATE: With regards to your first doubt, main's x is a full-fledged variable (it is declared as such) and not a reference. So assigning it any other value will not change y's value. In C++, when you evaluate a reference in an expression, like so:
int x = 0;
int& y = x;
// Right hand side is the evaluation of the reference y
int z = y;
It gets evaluated to the value of the referred-to variable, i.e. the value of x, i.e. 0. And z is a variable that is distinct from x.
With regards to your third doubt, func2 will return a reference. When a function is declared as returning a reference, what it returns is a reference. A reference is something that says "I'm this other one over there". In the case of the return value, at assembler level, provided that the function is not inlined and the call really happens, and so on, what will most probably be returned by func1 or func2 will be a pointer to the referred to-variable. Actually, in C++, a reference to an int is the type of what you get by defererencing an int pointer with *. Compare the previous example code with the same code with pointers.
int x = 0;
int* const y = &x;
int z = *y;
With references, the & and * occur silently.
Just so you know, references have been introduced into the language to support operator overloading, especially the assignment operator.
// Quizz : what is the type of (b = A(123))? What if it is a 1MB object?
// What should be the type of the right-hand side of the assignment operator?
A a, b;
a = b = A(123);
It can't be a value or it would be performing horrendously bad (passing result by copy). It has to be some kind of pointer, but it can't be. There would be &s or *s somewhere, depending on how you word the Standand for the functionality. Instead of inventing lots of special typesystem cases of operator overloading, Stroustrup decided to provide two orthogonal functionality: references, which are syntax-fussless immutable pointers (and the type of "talking about a variable"), and operator overloading which is cleanly enabled by references.
A reference is a way to make two names alias the same memory.
Take this function for example:
void something_cpp(int &x)
{
x = 2;
}
You can think of this in C terms as the following:
void something_c(int *x)
{
*x = 2;
}
similarly a function returning a reference in c++:
int something[10];
int &something2_cpp(void)
{
return something[0];
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
something2_cpp() = 10;
}
Can be thought of like this in C:
int something[10];
int *something2_c(void)
{
return &something[0];
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
*something2_c() = 10;
}
For example, if F is a reference to an integer, where the reference is not permitted to be pointed to a new object once it is initially pointed to one.
Can I write to declaration like: const int & F?
I am confused about reference and pointer, because they both represent the address of something, but we always write parameter use reference as: const & F, I understand that this is to reduce the copy and does not allow others to change it, but are there any other meanings? and why do we need "const" after a function declaration like: int F(int z) const; this const makes the return type const or everything in the function const?
One more example,
void F(int* p)
{
p+=3;
}
int z=8;
F(&z);
std::cout<<z<<std::endl;
What is the output for z since z is a reference, and I pass it as a pointer who points to an integer.Increasing p by 3 just makes the address different and does not change its value?
Just a first pass at some answers - if anything is unclear please comment and I'll try to elaborate.
int a = 3;
declares an integer, a, with the initial value 3, but you are allowed to change it. For example, later you can do
a = 5; // (*)
and a will have the value 5. If you want to prevent this, you can instead write
const int a = 3;
which will make the assignment (*) illegal - the compiler will issue an error.
If you create a reference to an integer, you are basically creating an alias:
int& b = a;
, despite appearances, does not create a new integer b. Instead, it declares b as an alias for a. If a had the value 3 before, so will b, if you write b = 6 and print the value of a, you will get 6 as well. Just as for a, you can make the assignment b = 6 illegal by declaring it as const:
const int& b = a;
means that b is still an alias for a, but it will not be used to assign a different value to a. It will only be used to read the value of a. Note that a itself still may or may not be constant - if you declared it as non-const you can still write a = 6 and b will also be 6.
As for the question about the pointers: the snippet
void F(int* p) {
p += 3;
}
int z = 8;
F(&z);
does not do what you expected. You pass the address of z into the function F, so inside F, the pointer p will point to z. However, what you are doing then, is adding 3 to the value of p, i.e. to the address that p points to. So you will change to pointer to point at some (semi)random memory address. Luckily, it's just a copy, and it will be discarded. What you probably wanted to do, is increment the value of the integer that p points to, which would be *p += 3. You could have prevented this mistake by making the argument a int* const, meaning: the value of p (i.e. address pointed to) cannot be changed, but the value it points to (i.e. the value of z, in this case) can. This would have made *p += 3 legal but not the "erroneous" (unintended) p += 3. Other versions would be const int* p which would make p += 3 legal but not *p += 3, and const int* const` which would have allowed neither.
Actually, the way you have written F is dangerous: suppose that you expand the function and later you write (correctly) *p += 3. You think that you are updating the value of z whose address you passed in, while actually you are updating the value of a more-or-less random memory address. In fact, when I tried compiling the following:
// WARNING WARNING WARNING
// DANGEROUS CODE - This will probably produce a segfault - don't run it!
void F(int* p) {
p += 3; // I thought I wrote *p += 3
// ... Lots of other code in between, I forgot I accidentally changed p
*p += 3; // NOOOOOOOOOOO!
}
int main()
{
int z=8;
F(&z);
std::cout << z;
return 0;
}
I got a segmentation fault, because I'm writing at an address where I haven't allocated a variable (for all I know I could have just screwed up my boot sector).
Finally, about const after a function declaration: it makes the this pointer a const pointer - basically the compiler emits const A* this instead of just A* this. Conceptually, it states your intention that the function will not change the state of the class, which usually means it won't change any of the (internal) variables. For example, it would make the following code illegal:
class A {
int a;
void f() const {
a = 3; // f is const, so it cannot change a!
}
};
A a;
a.f();
Of course, if the function returns something, this value can have its own type, for example
void f();
int f();
int& f();
const int f();
const int& f();
are functions that return nothing, a (copy of) an integer, a (reference to) an integer, a constant (copy of) an integer, and a constant reference of an integer. If in addition f is guaranteed not to change any class fields, you can also add const after the brackets:
void f() const;
int f() const;
int& f() const;
const int f() const;
const int& f() const;
The way I remember the difference between references and pointers is that a reference must exist and the reference cannot change.
A pointer can be changed, and usually needs to be checked against NULL or tested to verify it points to a valid object.
Also, an object passed by reference can be treated syntactically like it was declared in the function. Pointers must use deferencing syntax.
Hope that helps.
You are confusing things.
First of all int z=8; F(&z); here z IS NOT a reference.
So let me start with the basics:
when found in a type declaration the symbol & denotes a reference, but in any other context, the symbol & means address of.
Similar, in a type declaration * has the meaning of declaring a pointer, anywhere else it it the dereferencing operator, denoting you use the value at an address.
For instance:
int *p : p is a pointer of type int.
x = *p : x is assigned the value found at address p.
int &r = a : r is reference of type int, and r refers the variable a.
p = &a : p is assigned the address of variable a.
Another question you have: the const at the end of a function, like int f(int x) const. This can be used only on non-static class methods and specifies that the function does not modify the object. It has nothing to do with the return value.
What exactly does implicit dereference in C++ mean? Does it mean when I pass a reference to variable into a function parameter I don't need the & in front of it to use its value?
I assume that your teacher was trying to explain the difference between pointers and references.
It is relatively common (though not technically accurate) to refer to references as fancy pointers that do implicit de-referencing.
int x = 5;
int* xP = &x;
int& xR = x;
xR = 6; // If you think of a reference as a fancy pointer
// then here there is an implicit de-reference of the pointer to get a value.
*xP = 7; // Pointers need an explicit de-reference.
The correct way to think about is not to use the "A reference is a fancy pointer". You need to think about references in their own terms. They are basically another name for an existing variable (AKA an alias).
So when you pass a variable by reference to a function. This means the function is using the variable you passed via its alias. The function has another name for an existing variable. When the function modifies the variable it modifies the original because the reference is the original variable (just another name for it).
So to answer you question:
I don't need the & in front of it to use its value?
No you don't need to add the &.
int f(int& x) // pass a value by reference
{
x =5;
}
int plop = 8;
f(plop);
// plop is now 5.
Another context in which C++ will implicitly dereference pointers is with function pointers:
void foo() { printf("foo\n"); }
void bar() {
void (*pf)() = &foo;
(*pf)(); // Explicit dereference.
pf(); // Implicit dereference.
}
I have just started C++ and have come across references and have not understood completely.
References , as i read is an alternative name for an object.Why use that instead of directly accessing the object as any operation on references is directly reflected on the object ...?
Why and when are they used ?
Is ist like a constant pointer that is referenced each time it is used ... ?
And , it says
double& dr = 1; ---- says it is an error (some lavalue needed)
const double& cdr = 1; ---- says it is ok.
i dont understand it properly..So please explain why it is so ...
Thank You...:)
Why use that instead of directly
accessing the object as any operation
on references is directly reflected on
the object ...?
C++ passes parameters by value, meaning if you have a function such as:
void foo(MyObject o) { ... }
By default C++ will make a copy of a MyObject, not directly use the object being passed in. So, one use of references is to ensure you are working on the same object:
void foo(MyObject &o) { ...}
Or, if you aren't modifying o:
void foo(const MyObject &o) { ... }
References are another way of what was originally in C code like this
void fubarSquare(int *x){
int y = *x;
*x = y * y;
}
// typical invocation
int z = 2;
fubarSquare(&z);
// now z is 4
with references in C++ it would be like this
void fubarSquareCpp(int& x){
x = x * x;
}
// typical invocation
int z = 2;
fubarSquareCpp(z);
// now z is 4
It's a neater syntactical way of using a call-by-reference parameter instead of using the C's notation asterisk/star to indicate a pointer and as a call-by-reference parameter...and modifying the parameter directly outside of the function...
Have a look at Bjarne Stoustrap's page here which covers how C++ is and also here on the technical faq here
A reference is basically a pointer that looks like an object. It is very very hard to get a NULL reference though you can go through hoops and create one.
With regards to your example, 1 is an rvalue or a result. It is just a temporary variable and can not be modified. Thus you can't take a non const reference to it. However you can take a const reference to it. This means you can't change the value of the reference.
Here is an example of creating a NULL reference. Don't do it!
int * x = (int *)NULL;
int & y = *x;
I agree with you. using references as just an alias name is not very useful.
It is more useful if you consider it as an immutable pointer. But not that useful in fact.
Practically, it is used to define clean interfaces. For example when you define:
int foo(const int& param);
You say that param is a read-only parameter in foo.
Do not forget that you MUST assign a value to a reference.
See the C++ faqlite on references for more
my2c
References improve the syntax, so no pointer dereference needed.
Assuming Base is a class that may be derived from:
void someFunction(Base b)
{
b.function();
// b is a copy of what was passed - probably performance issues
// possible unintended object slicing - you only get the Base part of it
// no virtual function call
// no changes to b visible outside the function
}
void someFunction(Base* b)
{
b->function();
// a shortcut for (*b).function();
// b is the same object that was passed to the function
// possible virtual call
// changes visible outside the function
}
void someFunction(Base& b)
{
b.function();
// b is the same object that was passed to the function
// possible virtual call
// changes visible outside the function
}
References are like constant pointers (NOT pointers to constants - i.e. you can change the object, but you can't change to what you're pointing). const reference is a reference through which you can do things that can be done on const object.
References are also good, because you can't have a null reference
Give the wikipedia article a good read through. To sum it up, references are more friendly version of pointers which are commonly used to pass objects as references into functions without worrying about a null pointer.
To explain the example:
Think of the number 1 represented as a variable. When compiled, this number is put into the global section of the memory which can be referenced by the program, but not modified.
So it is of type: const int
double &dr = 1 is trying to assign dr (a reference to a double) to the const int 1. Since 1 is a constant, the compiler will not allow you to make a non-constant reference to it.
In the second line:
const double &dr = 1 is trying to assign dr (a constant reference to a double) the const int 1. This works because the reference is also const and therefore can point to a const int.
EDIT
The const int is converted to a const double before assigned.
References are language entitities that represent another object they refer to. Nonconst references are lvalues, and must be initialized with an lvalue. They can be useful like this:
int& x=condition ? array[1] : array[2];
int& y=condition ? array[0] : array[3];
x+=y;
y=0;
When used as a function parameter, they tell the caller he has to pass an lvalue that might be written to by the function:
void set1(int& x) { x=1; }
int foo;
set1(foo); // ok, foo is 1
set1(foo+1); // not OK, not lvalue
Const references, on the other hand, can be bound to rvalues. In function parameters, they are usually used to avoid excessive copies:
void niceness(std::string s); // the string would be copied by its copy-ctor
void niceness(const std::string& s); // the caller's string would be used
Note that this may or may not yield faster code.
When const-references are used in normal code, they can bind rvalues, too, and as a special rule, they extend the lifetime of the object they are bound to. This is what you saw in your code:
const double& d=1; // OK, bind a rvalue to a const-ref
double& d=1; // Bad, need lvalue
All references are polymorphic, like pointers:
class A { virtual void f(); }
class B : public A { void f(); }
B b;
A& ar=b;
ar.f(); // calls B::f()
and all references are aliases like pointers:
int f(int& a, const int& b)
{
a=1;
return b;
}
int x;
f(x, 42); // ==42, foo=1
x=42;
f(x, x); // ==1 (not 42), foo=1
double& dr = 1; // 1.0 would be more clear
Is invalid because 1 is viewed to be of type const double so if you want a reference to that variable you need to have a reference to a const double so
const double& dr = 1.0;
Is correct.
Utility of references is most visible in the context of passing parameters to functions.
I.e,
int a;
func definition: void foo (int& param) {param = 1;}
func call: foo(a);
The way as 'param' aliases 'a' is clean and its intention is easily understood by a reader of this code as well as compiler that may optimize away when inlining any additional memory allocation needed for the reference.
Passing a reference to a function and then having the function use the reference is almost like passing a pointer to the function and then having the function dereference the pointer. In many cases, the machine-code implementation will be identical. There are some differences, though, especially in the case of functions that get expanded inline. If a variable is passed by reference to an inline function, the compiler will often be able to substitute the variable itself--even if stored in a machine register--when expanding the function. By contrast, if one takes the address of a variable and passes that as a pointer to a function which then dereferences it, the compiler is less likely to figure out that optimization unless it determines not only that--at least for one particular expansion of the function--the pointer will always point to that variable, but also that the pointer will not be used anywhere else (if the pointer was used elsewhere, the variable could not be kept in a register).