In C++,
function() = 10;
Works if function returns a variable by reference, right?
Would someone please elaborate on this in detail?
Consider this piece of code first
int *function();
...
*function() = 10;
Looks similar, isn't it? In this example, function returns a pointer to int, and you can use it in the above way by applying a unary * operator to it.
Now, in this particular context you can think of references as "pointers in disguise". I.e. reference is a "pointer", except that you don't need to apply the * operator to it
int &function();
...
function() = 10;
In general, it is not a very good idea to equate references to pointers, but for this particular explanation it works very well.
Consider the following code, MyFunction returns a pointer to an int, and you set a value to the int.
int *i;
i = MyFunction();
*i = 10;
Are you with me so far?
Now shorten that to
*(MyFunction()) = 10;
It does exactly the same thing as the first code block.
You can look at a reference as just a pointer that's always dereferenced. So if my function returned a reference - not a pointer - to an int the frist code block would become
int &i;
i = MyFunction();
i = 10;
and the second would become
MyFunction() = 10;
You still with me?
With a little experiment, you can determine if this will work or not.
Considering this example:
class foo {
private:
int _val;
public:
foo() { _val = 0; }
int& get() { return _val; }
void print() { printf("val: %d\n", _val); }
};
int main(void) {
foo bar;
bar.print();
bar.get() = 10;
bar.print();
}
And it's output is:
val: 0
val: 10
So sure enough, it is possible to return a reference. Note that the variable being referenced may go out of scope, then your caller may get garbage results (just like dereferencing a pointer to an object that has gone out of scope). So this would be bad:
int& get() {
int myval = _val;
return myval;
}
The answer to this question has to do with rvalue semantics versus lvalue semantics. Every value in C++ is either an lvalue or an rvalue. Lvalues are values that are stored in an addressable memory location, which implies they are assignable (assuming they are non-const, of course.) An rvalue is basically anything else, e..g literal constants, or non-addressable temporary values.
So, a function which returns a non-const reference is an lvalue. However, a function which returns by value would be an rvalue expression, because it returns a non-addressable temporary value, and is therefore not assignable.
See the wikipedia entry for a more detailed explanation with examples given.
A question you did not ask.
But why would you want to do that?
Think of the std::vector (I am extending the principle to methods).
Here you have the method 'operator[]()' It retuns a reference to the internal member.
This then allows the following:
std::vector<int> x(20,1);
x[5] = 10;
// This is quivalent to:
x.operator[](5) = 10;
// So this is just a function (method) call:
x.function(5) = 10;
As others noted function can return reference to member variable, but word of caution: this function should not be a part of class interface. Once you provide a function that returns reference to internals of your class, you loose control over them.
If you have not yet read "Effective C++", do it.
Item 29 of the book says "Avoid returning "handles" to internal data" and explains in more details why this practice needs to be avoided.
A word of warning, when returning a reference: pay attention to the lifetime of whatever you're returning. This example is bad:
int &function()
{
int x;
// BAD CODE!
return x;
}
...
function() = 10;
x doesn't exist outside of function, and neither do any references to it. In order to return a reference from a function, the object being referred to has to last at least as long as the reference. In the above example, x would need to be declared static. Other possibilities would be making x a global variable, or making function a class member function and returning a reference to a class member variable, or allocating x on the heap and returning a reference to that (although that gets tricky with deallocation)
Related
I am calling a function with the signature
void setValue(int& data)
I would like to pass a literal number to it:
setValue(1);
But I get:
error: invalid initialization of non-const reference of type 'int&' from an rvalue of type 'int'
Is there a way I can make this work without changing the function (it's in a library) and without assigning each literal value to a variable?
Assuming setValue does not actually modify its argument and just has a wrong signature which you cannot change, here is an approach which is not thread-safe among other things:
#include <iostream>
void setValue(int &i)
{
std::cout << "i = " << i << std::endl;
}
int& evil(int i)
{
static int j;
j = i;
return j;
}
int main()
{
setValue(evil(1));
setValue(evil(2));
}
When you declare the argument as being an int&, you are saying that the function called can change the value and the caller will see the change.
So it is no longer valid to pass a literal value then because how could the function possibly change the given value of a literal?
If you don't want the setValue to be able to change the given value, make the argument either be an int or const int&. And if you do want the setValue function to be able to change the value, then the caller must declare a non-const variable to hold the int and pass in that.
Can I change something at the call site to make it work
The problem with your code is that you declared your function to expect a reference, which means the compiler has to prepare the code to allow the function to change whatever you pass into it at the call site. So yes, sure, you can declare a variable, set it to 1 and call your function with it.
Contrast this with a constant reference in the declaration, where the compiler knows you won't change it inside the function, and then you can pass a literal in without issues. In fact, any logical, thought out design will make setters accept constant parameters because it won't change them, it will just store a possibly processed value in its state.
The answer to „what do I do if a library has a bad interface and I can't change it“ is usually „write a wrapper“. Assuming this is a method of some class BadLibraryClass, you could do something like:
class Wrapper {
public:
BadLibraryClass inner;
setValue(int i) {
inner.setValue(i); // i is an lvalue
}
};
This is just a crude example. Perhaps inner is better off being a pointer, a reference or even a smart pointer. Perhaps you want a conversion operator to BadLibraryClass. Perhaps you can use inheritance to expose other methods of BadLibraryClass.
Two options:
Use the result of assignment:
static int _data;
void myCall() {
setValue((_data = 3));
}
Write a wrapper:
struct setValueW {
int _data;
// constructor
setValueW(int _data) : _data(_data) {
setValue(_data);
}
// if you want to call it again
void operator()() {
setValue(_data);
}
};
void myCall2() {
setValueW(3);
}
AFAIK, references keeps the addresses of the variable. 1 is not variable. It is temporary.
Take a look this article(this is a quote from this site)
c++11 introduced a new kind of reference variable -- an r-value reference
To declare one, use && after a type
int & // type designation for an L-value reference
int && // type designation for an R-value reference
L-value references can only refer to L-values
R-value references can reference to R-values (temporaries)
int x, y, z; // regular variables
int & r = x; // L-value reference to the variable x
int & r2 = x + y; // This would be ILLEGAL, since x + y is an R-value
int && r3 = x + y; // LEGAL. R-value reference, referring to R-value
So you can use (But this is not useful. It may be more useful if you write this in plain without rvalue or lvalue.):
void setValue(int&& data)
setValue(1);
Or you can use that:
void setValue(int& data)
int a = 11;
setValue(a);
Don't forget for second example. If you change the value of data parameter. You will have change the a variable value.
No, you can't.
An lvalue reference like that binds to a variable (roughly speaking).
Your literal is not such a thing. It never had a name, and may not even have a home in memory.
Your two options are the two things you ruled out, I'm afraid.
For what it's worth, this is not your fault: that is a rather poor setter. It should take const int& (which will automatically create a nice temporary variable for you out of the literal!), or even just const int.
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;
}
#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;
}
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).
In a C++ function like this:
int& getNumber();
what does the & mean? Is it different from:
int getNumber();
It's different.
int g_test = 0;
int& getNumberReference()
{
return g_test;
}
int getNumberValue()
{
return g_test;
}
int main()
{
int& n = getNumberReference();
int m = getNumberValue();
n = 10;
cout << g_test << endl; // prints 10
g_test = 0;
m = 10;
cout << g_test << endl; // prints 0
return 0;
}
the getNumberReference() returns a reference, under the hood it's like a pointer that points to an integer variable. Any change applyed to the reference applies to the returned variable.
The getNumberReference() is also a left-value, therefore it can be used like this:
getNumberReference() = 10;
Yes, the int& version returns a reference to an int. The int version returns an int by value.
See the section on references in the C++ FAQ
Yes, it's different.
The & means you return a reference. Otherwise it will return a copy (well, sometimes the compiler optimizes it, but that's not the problem here).
An example is vector. The operator[] returns an &. This allows us to do:
my_vector[2] = 42;
That wouldn't work with a copy.
The difference is that without the & what you get back is a copy of the returned int, suitable for passing into other routines, comparing to stuff, or copying into your own variable.
With the &, what you get back is essentially the variable containing the returned integer. That means you can actually put it on the left-hand side of an assignment, like so:
getNumber() = 200;
The first version allows you to write getNumber() = 42, which is probably not what you want. Returning references is very useful when overloading operator[] for your own containers types. It enables you to write container[9] = 42.
int& getNumber(): function returns an integer by reference.
int getNumber(): function returns an integer by value.
They differ in some ways and one of the interesting differences being that the 1st type can be used on the left side of assignment which is not possible with the 2nd type.
Example:
int global = 1;
int& getNumber() {
return global; // return global by reference.
}
int main() {
cout<<"before "<<global<<endl;
getNumber() = 2; // assign 2 to the return value which is reference.
cout<<"after "<<global<<endl;
return 0;
}
Ouptput:
before 1
after 2
"&" means reference, in this case "reference to an int".
It means that it is a reference type. What's a reference?
Wikipedia:
In the C++ programming language, a reference is a simple reference datatype that is less powerful but safer than the pointer type inherited from C. The name C++ reference may cause confusion, as in computer science a reference is a general concept datatype, with pointers and C++ references being specific reference datatype implementations. The declaration of the form:
Type & Name
where is a type and is
an identifier whose type is reference
to .
Examples:
int A = 5;
int& rA = A;
extern int& rB;
int& foo ();
void bar (int& rP);
class MyClass { int& m_b; /* ... */ };
int funcX() { return 42 ; }; int (&xFunc)() = funcX;
Here, rA and rB are of type "reference
to int", foo() is a function that
returns a reference to int, bar() is a
function with a reference parameter,
which is reference to int, MyClass is
a class with a member which is
reference to int, funcX() is a
function that returns an int, xFunc()
is an alias for funcX.
Rest of the explanation is here
It's a reference
It means it's returning a reference to an int, not an int itself.
It's a reference, which is exactly like a pointer except you don't have to use a pointer-dereference operator (* or ->) with it, the pointer dereferencing is implied.
Especially note that all the lifetime concerns (such as don't return a stack variable by address) still need to be addressed just as if a pointer was used.