There seems to be many relavent questions talking about pointer vs. reference, but I couldn't find what I want to know. Basically, an object is passed in by a reference:
funcA(MyObject &objRef) { ... }
Within the function, can I get a pointer to that object instead of the reference? If I treat the reference objRef as an alias to the MyObject, would &objRef actually give me a pointer to the MyObject? It doesn't seem likely. I am confused.
Edit: Upon closer examination, objRef does give me back the pointer to object that I need - Most of you gave me correct info/answer, many thanks. I went along the answer that seems to be most illustrative in this case.
Yes, applying the address-of operator to the reference is the same as taking the address of the original object.
#include <iostream>
struct foo {};
void bar( const foo& obj )
{
std::cout << &obj << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
foo obj;
std::cout << &obj << std::endl;
bar( obj );
return 0;
}
Result:
0x22ff1f
0x22ff1f
Any operator applied to a reference will actually apply to the object it refers to (§5/5 [expr]); the reference can be thought of as another name for the same object. Taking the address of a reference will therefore give you the address of the object that it refers to.
It as actually unspecified whether or not a reference requires storage (§8.3.2/4 [dcl.ref]) and so it wouldn't make sense to take the address of the reference itself.
As an example:
int x = 5;
int& y = x;
int* xp = &x;
int* yp = &y;
In the above example, xp and yp are equal - that is, the expression xp == yp evaluates to true because they both point to the same object.
The general solution is to use std::addressof, as in:
#include <type_traits>
void foo(T & x)
{
T * p = std::addressof(x);
}
This works no matter whether T overloads operator& or not.
Use the address operator on the reference.
MyObject *ptr = &objRef;
Use the address-of (&) operator on the reference.
&objRef
Like any other operator used on a reference, this actually affects the referred-to object.
As #Kerrek points out, since the operator affects the referred-to object, if that object has an overloaded operator& function, this will call it instead and std::address_of is needed to get the true address.
In C++, a reference is a restricted type of pointer. It can only be assigned once and can never have a NULL value.
References are most useful when used to indicate that a parameter to a function is being Passed by Reference where the address of the variable is passed in. Without a Reference, Pass By Value is used instead.
Related
I'm learning C++ and pointers and I thought I understood pointers until I saw this.
On one side the asterix(*) operator is dereferecing, which means it returns the value in the address the value is pointing to, and that the ampersand (&) operator is the opposite, and returns the address of where the value is stored in memory.
Reading now about assignment overloading, it says "we return *this because we want to return a reference to the object". Though from what I read *this actually returns the value of this, and actually &this logically should be returned if we want to return a reference to the object.
How does this add up? I guess I'm missing something here because I didn't find this question asked elsewhere, but the explanation seems like the complete opposite of what should be, regarding the logic of * to dereference, & get a reference.
For example here:
struct A {
A& operator=(const A&) {
cout << "A::operator=(const A&)" << endl;
return *this;
}
};
this is a pointer that keeps the address of the current object. So dereferencing the pointer like *this you will get the lvalue of the current object itself. And the return type of the copy assignment operator of the presented class is A&. So returning the expression *this you are returning a reference to the current object.
According to the C++ 17 Standard (8.1.2 This)
1 The keyword this names a pointer to the object for which a
non-static member function (12.2.2.1) is invoked or a non-static data
member’s initializer (12.2) is evaluated.
Consider the following code snippet as an simplified example.
int x = 10;
int *this_x = &x;
Now to return a reference to the object you need to use the expression *this_x as for example
std::cout << *this_x << '\n';
& has multiple meanings depending on the context. In C and used alone, I can either be a bitwise AND operator or the address of something referenced by a symbol.
In C++, after a type name, it also means that what follows is a reference to an object of this type.
This means that is you enter :
int a = 0;
int & b = a;
… b will become de facto an alias of a.
In your example, operator= is made to return an object of type A (not a pointer onto it). This will be seen this way by uppers functions, but what will actually be returned is an existing object, more specifically the instance of the class of which this member function has been called.
Yes, *this is (the value of?) the current object. But the pointer to the current object is this, not &this.
&this, if it was legal, would be a pointer-to-pointer to the current object. But it's illegal, since this (the pointer itself) is a temporary object, and you can't take addresses of those with &.
It would make more sense to ask why we don't do return this;.
The answer is: forming a pointer requires &, but forming a reference doesn't. Compare:
int x = 42;
int *ptr = &x;
int &ref = x;
So, similarly:
int *f1() return {return &x;}
int &f1() return {return x;}
A simple mnemonic you can use is that the * and & operators match the type syntax of the thing you're converting from, not the thing you're converting to:
* converts a foo* to a foo&
& converts a foo& to a foo*
In expressions, there's no meaningful difference between foo and foo&, so I could have said that * converts foo* to foo, but the version above is easier to remember.
C++ inherited its type syntax from C, and C type syntax named types after the expression syntax for using them, not the syntax for creating them. Arrays are written foo x[...] because you use them by accessing an element, and pointers are written foo *x because you use them by dereferencing them. Pointers to arrays are written foo (*x)[...] because you use them by dereferencing them and then accessing an element, while arrays of pointers are written foo *x[...] because you use them by accessing an element and then dereferencing it. People don't like the syntax, but it's consistent.
References were added later, and break the consistency, because there isn't any syntax for using a reference that differs from using the referenced object "directly". As a result, you shouldn't try to make sense of the type syntax for references. It just is.
The reason this is a pointer is also purely historical: this was added to C++ before references were. But since it is a pointer, and you need a reference, you have to use * to get rid of the *.
There seems to be many relavent questions talking about pointer vs. reference, but I couldn't find what I want to know. Basically, an object is passed in by a reference:
funcA(MyObject &objRef) { ... }
Within the function, can I get a pointer to that object instead of the reference? If I treat the reference objRef as an alias to the MyObject, would &objRef actually give me a pointer to the MyObject? It doesn't seem likely. I am confused.
Edit: Upon closer examination, objRef does give me back the pointer to object that I need - Most of you gave me correct info/answer, many thanks. I went along the answer that seems to be most illustrative in this case.
Yes, applying the address-of operator to the reference is the same as taking the address of the original object.
#include <iostream>
struct foo {};
void bar( const foo& obj )
{
std::cout << &obj << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
foo obj;
std::cout << &obj << std::endl;
bar( obj );
return 0;
}
Result:
0x22ff1f
0x22ff1f
Any operator applied to a reference will actually apply to the object it refers to (§5/5 [expr]); the reference can be thought of as another name for the same object. Taking the address of a reference will therefore give you the address of the object that it refers to.
It as actually unspecified whether or not a reference requires storage (§8.3.2/4 [dcl.ref]) and so it wouldn't make sense to take the address of the reference itself.
As an example:
int x = 5;
int& y = x;
int* xp = &x;
int* yp = &y;
In the above example, xp and yp are equal - that is, the expression xp == yp evaluates to true because they both point to the same object.
The general solution is to use std::addressof, as in:
#include <type_traits>
void foo(T & x)
{
T * p = std::addressof(x);
}
This works no matter whether T overloads operator& or not.
Use the address operator on the reference.
MyObject *ptr = &objRef;
Use the address-of (&) operator on the reference.
&objRef
Like any other operator used on a reference, this actually affects the referred-to object.
As #Kerrek points out, since the operator affects the referred-to object, if that object has an overloaded operator& function, this will call it instead and std::address_of is needed to get the true address.
In C++, a reference is a restricted type of pointer. It can only be assigned once and can never have a NULL value.
References are most useful when used to indicate that a parameter to a function is being Passed by Reference where the address of the variable is passed in. Without a Reference, Pass By Value is used instead.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int &fun()
{
static int x = 10;
return x;
}
int main()
{
fun() = 30;
cout << fun();
return 0;
}
Function fun() is returning value by reference but in main() method I am assigning some int to function. Ideally, a compiler should show an error like lvalue required but in above case the program works fine. Why is it so?
It's loose and sloppy language to say "a function returns something". It's OK as a shorthand if you know how to work with that, but in this case you get confused.
The more correct way to think about it is that you evaluate a function call expression. Doing that gives you a value. A value is either an rvalue or an lvalue (modulo details).
When T is an object type and you evaluate a function that has return type T, you get a value of type T which is an rvalue. On the other hand, if the function has return type T &, you get a value of type T which is an lvalue (and the value is the thing bound to the reference in the return statement).
Returning a reference is quite useful.
For example it's what std::map::operator[] does. And I hope you like the possibility of writing my_map[key] = new_value;.
If a regular (non-operator) function returns a reference then it's ok to assign to it and I don't see any reason for which this should be forbidden.
You can prevent assignment by returning a const X& or by returning X instead if you really want.
You can rewrite the code using pointers, which might be easier to understand:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int *fun() //fun defined to return pointer to int
{
static int x = 10;
return &x; // returning address of static int
}
int main()
{
*fun() = 30; //execute fun(), take its return value and dereference it,
//yielding an lvalue, which you can assign to.
cout << *fun(); //you also need to dereference here
return 0;
}
References can be very confusing from a syntax point of view, as the dereferencing of the underlying "pointer" is implicitly done by the compiler for you. The pointer version looks more complicated, but is clearer or more explicit in its notation.
PS: Before someone objects to me regarding references as being a kind of pointer, the disassembly for both code versions is 100% identical.
PPS: Of course this method is a quite insidious breach of encapsulation. As others have pointed out, there are uses for this technique, but you should never do something like that without a very strong reason for it.
It works becuse the result of that function is an lvalue. References are lvalues. Basically, in the whole point of returning a non-const reference from a function is to be able to assign to it (or perform other modifications of referenced object).
In addition to other answers, consider the following code:
SomeClass& func() { ... }
func().memberFunctionOfSomeClass(value);
This is a perfectly natural thing to do, and I'd be very surprised if you expected the compiler to give you an error on this.
Now, when you write some_obj = value; what really happens behind the scenes is that you call some_obj.operator =(value);. And operator =() is just another member function of your class, no different than memberFunctionOfSomeClass().
All in all, it boils down to:
func() = value;
// equivalent to
func().operator =(value);
// equivalent to
func().memberFunctionOfSomeClass(value);
Of course this is oversimplified, and this notation doesn't apply to builtin types like int (but the same mechanisms are used).
Hopefully this will help you understand better what others have already explained in terms of lvalue.
I was buffled by similar code too - at fist. It was "why the hell I assign value to a function call, and why compiler is happy with it?" I questioned myself. But when you look at what happens "behind", it does make sense.
As cpp and others poined out, lvalues are "memory locations" that have address and we can assign values to them. You can find more on the topic of lvalues and rvalues on the internet.
When we look at the function:
int& fun()
{
static int x = 10;
return x;
}
I moved the & to the type, so it's more obvious we are returning a reference to int.
We see we have x, which is lvalue - it has address and we can assign to it. It's also static, which makes it special - if it wasn't static, the lifetime (scope) of the variable would end with stack unwinding upon leaving the function and then the reference could point to whatever black hole exists in the universe. However as x is static, it will exist even after we leave the function (and when we come back to the function again) and we can access it outside of the function.
We are returning reference to an int, and since we return x, it's reference to the x. We can then use the reference to alter the x outside of the function. So:
int main()
{
fun();
We just call the function. Variable x (in scope of fun function) is created, it has value of 10 assigned. It's address and value exist even after function is left - but we can't use it's value, since we don't have it's address.
fun() = 30;
We call the function and then change the value of x. The x value is changed via the reference returned by the function. NOTE: the function is called first and only after the function call was completed, then, the assignment happens.
int& reference_to_x = fun(); // note the &
Now we (finally) keep the reference to x returned by the function. Now we can change x without calling the function first. (reference_to_x will probably have the same address as the x have inside the fun function)
int copy_of_x = fun(); // no & this time
This time we create new int and we just copy the value of x (via the reference). This new int has its own address, it doesn't point to the x like reference_to_x is.
reference_to_x = 5;
We assigned x the value 5 through the reference, and we didn't even called the function. The copy_of_x is not changed.
copy_of_x = 15;
We changed the new int to value 15. The x is not changed, since copy_of_x have its own address.
}
As 6502 and others pointed out, we use similar approach with returning references a lot with containers and custom overrides.
std::map<std::string, std::string> map = {};
map["hello"] = "Ahoj";
// is equal to
map.operator[]("hello") = "Ahoj"; // returns reference to std::string
// could be done also this way
std::string& reference_to_string_in_map = map.operator[]("hello");
reference_to_string_in_map = "Ahoj";
The map function we use could have declaration like this:
std::string& map::operator[]( const std::string& key ); // returns reference
We don't have address to the string we "stored" in the map, so we call this overridden function of map, passing it key so map knows which string we would like to access, and it returns us reference to that string, which we can use to change the value. NOTE: again the function is called first and only after it was completed (map found the correct string and returned reference to it) the assignment happens. It's like with fun() = 10, only more beatiful...
Hope this helps anyone who still woudn't understand everything even after reading other answers...
L-value is a locator-value. It means it has address. A reference clearly has an address. The lvalue required you can get if you return from fun() by value:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int fun()
{
static int x = 10;
return x;
}
int main()
{
fun() = 30;
cout << fun();
return 0;
}
Here is the code which basically implementing the = assignment for a class named CMyString, and the code is right.
CMyString& CMyString::operator =(const CMyString &str) {
if(this == &str)
return *this;
delete []m_pData;
m_pData = NULL;
m_pData = new char[strlen(str.m_pData) + 1];
strcpy(m_pData, str.m_pData);
return *this;
}
The instance is passed by reference, and the first 'if' is checking whether the instance passed in is itself or not. My question is: why does it use &str to compare, doesn't str already contain the address of the instance? Could any one explain how this line works?
Also, I just want to make sure that this contains the address of the object: Is this correct?
isn't str already contains the address of the instance
No. A reference is the object itself. It's not a pointer to the object.
(I. e., in the declaration of the function, &str stands for "reference to str" and not "address of str" - what you're talking about would be right if the function was declared like this:
CMyString& CMyString::operator =(const CMyString *str);
but it isn't.)
Address-of Operator and Reference Operator are different.
The & is used in C++ as a reference declarator in addition to being the address-of operator. The meanings are not identical.
int target;
int &rTarg = target; // rTarg is a reference to an integer.
// The reference is initialized to refer to target.
void f(int*& p); // p is a reference to a pointer
If you take the address of a reference, it returns the address of its target. Using the previous declarations, &rTarg is the same memory address as &target.
str passed by to the assignment operator is passed by reference, so it contains the actual object, not its address. A this is a pointer to the class a method is being called on, so if one wants to compare, whether passed object is the same object itself, he has to get the address of str in order to compare.
Note, that & behaves differently, depending on where it is used. If in statement, it means getting an address to the object it is applied to. On the other hand, if it is used in a declaration, it means, that the declared object is a reference.
Consider the following example:
int i = 42;
int & refToI = i; // A reference to i
refToI = 99;
std::cout << i; // Will print 99
int j = 42;
int * pJ = &j; // A pointer to j
*pJ = 99;
std::cout << j; // Will print 99
this is a pointer to the instance, so yes, it contains the address.
The whole point of verifying, if the passed object is this or not is to avoid unnecessary (or, possibly destructive) assignment to self.
While indeed a variable reference - denoted by the symbol & after the type name - underlying implementation is usually a pointer, the C++ standard seemingly does not specify it.
In its usage anyway, at the syntax level, a reference is used like a non referenced value of the same type, ie. more strictly speaking :
If the type of the variable is T &, then it shall be used as if it were of type T.
If you must write str.someMethod() and not str->someMethod() (without any overloading of the arrow operator), then you must use & to obtain the address of the value. In other words, a reference acts more or less like an alias of a variable, not like a pointer.
For more information about references and pointers, see these questions:
What's the meaning of * and & when applied to variable names?
What are the differences between a pointer variable and a reference variable in C++?
Why 'this' is a pointer and not a reference?
#include<iostream>
int & fun();
int main()
{
int p = fun();
std::cout << p;
return 0;
}
int & fun()
{
int a=10;
return a;
}
Why is this program not giving error at line no.6 as "invalid conversion from int* to int", as it happens in case we do like this?
int x = 9;
int a = &x;
int& is a type; it means "a reference to int."
&x is an expression; it means "take the address of x." The unary & operator is the address operator. It takes the address of its argument. If x is an int, then the type of &x is "a pointer to int" (that is, int*).
int& and int* are different types. References and pointers are the same in many respects; namely, they both refer to objects, but they are quite different in how they are used. For one thing, a reference implicitly refers to an object and no indirection is needed to get to the referenced object. Explicit indirection (using * or ->) is needed to get the object referenced by a pointer.
These two uses of the & are completely different. They aren't the only uses either: for example, there is also the binary & operator that performs the bitwise and operation.
Note also that your function fun is incorrect because you return a reference to a local variable. Once the function returns, a is destroyed and ceases to exist so you can never use the reference that is returned from the function. If you do use it, e.g. by assigning the result of fun() to p as you do, the behavior is undefined.
When returning a reference from a function you must be certain that the object to which the reference refers will exist after the function returns.
Why is this program not giving error at line no.5 as "invalid conversion from int* to int", as it happens in case we do like this?
That's because you are trying to return the variable by reference and not by address. However your code invokes Undefined Behaviour because returning a reference to a local variable and then using the result is UB.
Because in one case its a pointer and in the other a reference:
int a=&x means set a to the address of x - wrong
int &p=fun() means set p to a reference to an int - ok
Functions in C++ are not same as macros i.e. when you qrite int p = fun() it doesn't become int p = &a; (I guess that is what you are expecting from your question). What you are doing is returning a reference from the function f. You are no where taking address of any variable. BTW, the above code will invoke undfeined behavior as you are returning a reference to the local variable.
You're not returning an int *, you're retuning an int &. That is, you're returning a reference to an integer, not a pointer. That reference can decay into an int.
Those are two different things, although they both use the ampersand symbol. In your first example, you are returning a reference to an int, which is assignable to an int. In your second example, you are trying to assign the address of x (pointer) to an int, which is illegal.