I am programming in C++ more then 5 years, and have never met any place where reference of the variable is recommended to use except as a function argument (if you don't want to copy what you pass as your function argument). So could someone point cases where C++ variable reference is recommended (I mean it gives any advantage) to use.
As a return value of an opaque collection accessor/mutator
The operator[] of std::map returns a reference.
To shorten the text needed to reference a variable
If you miss old-school with Foo do ... statement (that's Pascal syntax), you can write
MyString &name = a->very->long_->accessor->to->member;
if (name.upcase() == "JOHN") {
name += " Smith";
}
another example of this can be found in Mike Dunlavey's answer
To state that something is just a reference
References are also useful in wrapper objects and functors--i.e. in intermediate objects that logically contact no members but only references to them.
Example:
class User_Filter{
std::list<User> const& stop_list;
public: Functor (std::list<User> const& lst)
: stop_list(lst) { }
public: bool operator()(User const& u) const
{ return stop_list.exists(u); }
};
find_if(x.begin(),x.end(),User_Filter(user_list));
The idea here that it's a compile error if you don't initialize a reference in constructor of such an object. The more checks in compile time--the better programs are.
Here's a case where it's handy:
MyClass myArray[N];
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++){
MyClass& a = myArray[i];
// in code here, use a instead of myArray[i], i.e.
a.Member = Value;
}
Use references wherever you want, pointers when you are forced to.
References and pointers share part of their semantics: they are an alias to an element that is not present. The main difference is with memory managements: references express clearly that you are not responsible for the resource. On the other hand, with pointers it is never really clear (unless you mean smart pointers): are you assumed to delete the pointer or will it be deleted externally?
You must use pointers when you must manage memory, want to allow for optional semantics or need to change the element referred to at a later time.
In the rest of cases, where you can use a reference or a pointer, references are clearer and should be preferred.
Now, as you point out, they are really not needed: you can always use pointers for all the reference uses (even parameter passing), but the fact that you can use a single tool for everything does not mean there are no better suited tools for the job.
I tend to use reference members instead of pointers for externally controlled non-optional construction parameters.
EDIT (added example):
Let's say that you have a database and a DAO class having the database as a dependency:
struct Database {};
struct PersonDao {
const Database &m_d;
PersonDao(const Database &d): m_d(d) {}
};
Furthermore, the scope of the database is controlled externally from the DAO:
int main() {
Database d;
PersonDao pd(d);
}
In this case it makes sense to use a reference type, since you don't ever want DAO::m_d to be null, and its lifetime is controlled externally (from the main function in this case).
I use references in function arguments not just to avoid copies but also instead of pointers to avoid having to deal with NULL pointers where appropriate. Pointers model a "maybe there's a value, but maybe not (NULL)", references are a clear statement that a value is required.
... and to make it absolutely clear (-> comments). I tend to avoid pointers to model "maybe there are several values" - a vector is a better option here. Pointers to several values often end up in C-style programming because you usually have to pass the # of elements as well separately.
Use a const reference to give a name to a value, e.g.:
const Vec3 &ba=b-a;
This names the value, but doesn't necessarily create a variable for it. In theory, this gives the compiler more leeway and may allow it to avoid some copy constructor calls.
(Related non-duplicated Stack Overflow question at Const reference to temporary. The Herb Sutter link there has more information about this.)
The argument to the copy-constructor MUST be passed as a reference, since otherwise the copy constructor would need to call it self in an endless recursion (stack overflow).
I tend to agree, but perhaps const return values.
Well you kind of have two choices for aliasing other values(ignoring shared_ptrs and the like): pointers and references.
References must be initialized at construction to refer to something else. So semantically a reference can never be NULL. In reality, though, the underlying data can go away, giving you problems often more difficult to debug than if a pointer went away. So I'm not sure there's a real advantage here unless you were disciplined and consistent with how they were used vis-a-vis referring to items that were dynamically allocated. If you did this with pointers too, you'd avoid the same problems.
Perhaps more importantly, references can be used without thinking about all the issues that arise with pointers. This is probably the main advantage. Semantically a reference is the thing. If you guarantee as the caller/callee that the underlying memory doesn't go away, you don't have to confuse the user with any of the questions that come along with pointers (Do I need to free this? Could this be NULL? etc) and can safely use a reference for convenience.
An example of this might be a function that looks up the corresponding string for an enum,
const std::string& ConvertToString( someEnum val)
{
static std::vector< std::string > lookupTable;
if (lookupTable.empty())
{
// fill in lookup table
}
// ignoring the cast that would need to happen
return lookupTable[val]
}
Here the contract between the caller and the callee guarantees that the return type will always be there. You can safely return a reference, and avoid some of the questions that pointers invite.
References make code prettier. So use them whenever it takes a reference to beautify your code.
i would like to enlist some cases:
1) while writing singleton classes
class singleton
{
singleton();
explicit singleton(const singleton&);
singleton& operator=(const singleton&);
public:
static singleton& instance()
{
static singleton inst;
return inst;
}
};// this is called the 'Meyers' singleton pattern. refer to More Effective C++ by Scott Meyers
it has all the benefits, but avoids using the new operator
**2)**here is no such thing as a null reference. A reference must always refer to some object. As a result, if you have a variable whose purpose is to refer to another object, but it is possible that there might not be an object to refer to, you should make the variable a pointer, because then you can set it to null. On the other hand, if the variable must always refer to an object, i.e., if your design does not allow for the possibility that the variable is null, you should probably make the variable a reference
**3)**Because a reference must refer to an object, C++ requires that references be initialized:
string& rs; // error! References must
// be initialized
string s("xyzzy");
string& rs = s; // okay, rs refers to s
Pointers are subject to no such restriction
The fact that there is no such thing as a null reference implies that it can be more efficient to use references than to use pointers. That's because there's no need to test the validity of a reference before using it
**4)**Another important difference between pointers and references is that pointers may be reassigned to refer to different objects. A reference, however, always refers to the object with which it is initialized: ยค Item M1, P10
string s1("Nancy");
string s2("Clancy");
string& rs = s1; // rs refers to s1
string *ps = &s1; // ps points to s1
rs = s2; // rs still refers to s1,
// but s1's value is now
// "Clancy"
ps = &s2; // ps now points to s2;
// s1 is unchanged
Stream operators are an obvious example
std::ostream & operator<< (std::ostream &, MyClass const &...) {
....
}
mystream << myClassVariable;
You obviously don't want a pointer as checking for NULL makes using an operator very tedious i.s.o. convenient
I've used a reference to an ostream instead of a pointer. I supppose that I prefer references to pointers when the class has a lot of operators.
Related
If I have a class that has many int, float, and enum member variables, is it considered efficient and/or good practice to return them as references rather than copies, and return constant references where no changes should be made? Or is there a reason I should return them as copies?
There is no reason to return primitive types such as int and float by reference, unless you want to allow them to be changed. Returning them by reference is actually less efficient because it saves nothing (ints and pointers are usually the same size) while the dereferencing actually adds overhead.
If they are constant references, maybe it is OK. If they are not constant references, probably not.
As to efficiency - on a 64-bit machine, the references will be 64-bit quantities (pointers in disguise); int and float and enum will be smaller. If you return a reference, you are forcing a level of indirection; it is less efficient.
So, especially for built-in types as return values, it is generally better to return the value rather than a reference.
Some cases it is necessary:
Look at overloaded operator[] for any class. It usually has two versions. The mutating version has to return a reference.
int &operator[](int index); // by reference
int operator[](int index) const; // by value
In general, It is OK to allow access to class members by trusted entities by a class e.g. friends. In case these trusted entities also need to modify the state, references or pointers to the class members, are the only options one has.
In many cases, references usually simplify syntax e.g where 'v' is STL vector.
v.at(1) = 2 vs *(v.at(1)) = 2;
This is probably mostly a matter of style or preference. One reason to not return references is because you are using getters and setters to allow you to change the implementation of those members, If you changed a private member to another type, or removed it completely because it can be computed, then you no longer have the ability to return a reference, since there's nothing to reference.
On the other hand, returning references for non-trivial types (compound classes) can speed up your code a bit over making a copy, and you can allow those members to be assigned through the returned reference (if desired).
Almost, const references are better. For ints and such theres no point because you would want them to be changed or because they are the same size (or nearly) as a reference.
So yes it is a good idea. I prefer another language or to hack away at my own C++ stuff and just allow the var to be public (once again it just my own stuff)
This is a performance question mostly but from a robustness point of view I would say it's preferably to return values instead of const references. The reason being that even const references weakens encapsulation. Consider this:
struct SomeClass
{
std::vector<int> const & SomeInts () const;
void AddAnInt (int i); // Adds an integer to the vector of ints.
private:
std::vector<int> m_someInts;
};
bool ShouldIAddThisInt(int i);
void F (SomeClass & sc)
{
auto someInts = sc.SomeInts ();
auto end = someInts.end ();
for (auto iter = someInts.begin (); iter != end; ++iter)
{
if (ShouldIAddThisInt(*iter))
{
// oops invalidates the iterators
sc.AddAnInt (*iter);
}
}
}
So in case it makes semantically sense and we can avoid excessive dynamic allocations I prefer return by value.
Getters are for emissions of a class say Exhaust Car.emit(), where the car has just created the Exhaust.
If you are bound to write const Seat& Car.get_front_seat()
to have later sit in the Driver, you can immediately notice that something is wrong.
Correcly, you'd rather write Car.get_in_driver(Driver)
which then calls directly seat.sit_into(Driver).
This second method easily avoids those awkward situations when you get_front_seat but the door is closed and you virtually push in the driver through the closed door. Remember, you have only asked for a seat! :)
All in all: always return by value (and rely on return value optimization), or realize it is time for changing your design.
The background: classes were created so that data can be coupled together with its accessor functionality, localizing bugs etc. Thus classes are never activity, but data oriented.
Further pitfalls: in c++ if you return something by const ref, then you can easily forget it is only a ref and once your object is destructed you can be left with an invalid ref. Otherwise, that object will be copied once it leaves the getter anyway. But unnecessay copies are avoided by the compiler, see Return Value Optimization.
Consider the following class.
class mapping_items
{
public:
mapping_items(){}
void add(const mapping_item* item) {
items_.push_back( item );
}
size_t count() const{
return items_.size();
}
const mapping_item& find(const std::string& pattern){
const mapping_item* item = // iterate vector and find item;
return *item;
}
private:
mapping_items(const mapping_items&); // not allowed
mapping_items& operator=(const mapping_items&); // not allowed
std::vector<const mapping_item*> items_;
};
C++ FAQ says,
Use references when you can, and
pointers when you have to.
So in the above example, should I return const mapping_item& or const mapping_item* ?
The reason why I chose mapping_item& is because there will be always a default return value available. I will never have null returns. So a reference makes it clear that it can't have nulls. Is this the correct design?
There is a problem - what happens if your find() function fails? If this is expected never to happen, you are OK returning a reference (and raise an exception if it happens despite the fact it shouldn't). If on the other hand it may happen (e.g. looking up a name in an address book), you should consider returning a pointer, as a pointer can be NULL, indicating the find failed.
This is seems like an appropriate design choice to me - like the C++ FAQ states - uses references when you can. IMO, unnecessary use of pointers just seems to make code harder to understand.
Yes, it's the correct design. Clients can rely on values being non-null.
On a related note, some other class is responsible for managing the lifetime of mapping_item's?
Pointers and ownership easily introduces memory leaks or worse. You might want to consider whether you actually need to store pointers, or if you can get away with copying mapping_item's instead, to avoid memory leaks. However, pointers are necessary if you need to manage subclassed mapping_item's. Pointers are advisable if instances are large or need to be shared.
If you really need pointers, consider using boost::shared_ptr<> rather than raw pointers, both inside your class and as parameter types to e.g. the add() function.
Some people say, and I agree,
use pointers if value can be NULL
and references otherwise
As to your example, I'd probably go for return const mapping_item;, so by value, to avoid having a reference to a temporary, and hope for my compiler to optimize copying away.
What's better as default, to return a copy (1) or a reference (2) from a getter function?
class foo {
public:
std::string str () { // (1)
return str_;
}
const std::string& str () { // (2)
return str_;
}
private:
std::string str_;
};
I know 2) could be faster but don't have to due to (N)RVO. 1) is safer concerning dangling references but the object will probably outlife or the reference is never stored.
What's your default when you write a class and don't know (yet) whether performance and lifetime issues matter?
Additional question: Does the game change when the member is not a plain string but rather a vector?
Well it really depends on what you expect the behaviour to be, by default.
Do you expect the caller to see changes made to str_ unbeknownst(what a word!) to them? Then you need to pass back a reference. Might be good if you can have a refcounted data member and return that.
If you expect the caller to get a copy, do 1).
My rule of thumb is to return a copy for simple basic datatypes such as int, string etc. For a bit more complicated structures where copying may be costlier (like vector you mentioned) I prefer to return a const-reference.
The compiler will not be able to perform (N)RVO in this case. The (named) return value optimization is an optimization where the compiler creates the function auto variables in the place of the return value to avoid having to copy:
std::string f()
{
std::string result;
//...
return result;
}
When the compiler sees the code above (and assuming that if any other return is present it will also return the result variable) it knows that the variable result has as only possible fate being copied over the returned temporary and then destroyed. The compiler can then remove the result variable altogether and use the return temporary as the only variable. I insist: the compiler does not remove the return temporary, it removes the local function variable. The return temporary is required to fulfill the compilers call convention.
When you are returning a member of your class, the member must exist, and the call convention requires the returned object to be in a particular location (stack address usually). The compiler cannot create the method attribute over the returned object location, nor can it elide making the copy.
I'm returning a reference, because a string seems not "cheap to copy" to me. It's a complex data type with dynamic memory management and all that.
The "if you want the caller to get a copy, you should return by value" argument is moot, because it doesn't preclude copies at all. The caller can still do the following and get a copy anyway
string s = obj.str();
You need to explicitly create a reference on the caller side to be able to refer to the data member directly afterwards - but why would you do that? There definitely are enough user defined types that are cheap to copy
Smart Pointers
Iterators
All of the non-class types.
Returning a reference to an object's internals as part of its public interface can be a code smell if not outright bad design.
Before returning a reference to an internal object in a public interface, the designer should pause. Doing so couples users of your class to part of your design. Often it is outright unnecessary, sometimes it indicates further design work is needed. At times it is necessary, as commenters have noted.
If there is no special reason to use a value type as return value, I always return a const reference. If I need (or expect to need) a (writable) copy, I add a copy ctor and an assignment operator to the returned class if not already available. For the usage think of:
const MyClass & ref = container.GetAt( 1234 ); // need only reference
MyClass copy = container.GetAt( 1234 ); // get writable copy
Actually this is quite straight forward, isn't it?
if its a small basic type - primatives like int and long and their wrappers and other basic things like 'Point' - return a copy
if its a string, or any other complex type - return a reference.
The only problem I have with returning a const-reference, which is something I would typically do for non basic types, is that there is nothing to stop the caller removing the "const"ness and then modifying the value.
Personally, I'd suggest that such code is a bug. If they know you're returning a reference and continue to cast away the const then it's on their head.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What are the differences between pointer variable and reference variable in C++?
What does Class& mean in c++ and how is it different from Class*?
Class& foo;
Class* foo;
The & version represents a reference while the * version represents a pointer. The difference is far too big for a typical SO post. I suggest you start at the C++ FAQ lite
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/references.html
I usually don't like to answer posts with a "you should use google" answer. However this is one topic that I highly advise you google. In particular google "c++ pointers vs. references". There is a wealth of information available on this topic and the discussions on those pages will trump anything we'll write here.
The * is a pointer, the & is a reference. The difference between the two is that a pointer is an area of memory that must be dereferenced, eg. by means of the -> operator in order to be "seen" as a class instance. A reference is instead an "alias", just an alternative name for the same class instance. You don't need to use the -> operator with a reference. You use the dot operator.
Personally, I rarely used the references, mostly when I had a value object that I allocated on the stack. The new operator always returns a pointer, which you then have to dereference. Moreover, one of the most problematic issues of the references is that you cannot set them to NULL. In some cases, it is handy to have a function that accepts either an object pointer or NULL. If your function accepts a reference, you cannot pass a NULL (you could use the Null object pattern, however)
A Class * can point at any class object, or none.
A Class & always points to exactly one class object, and can never point to a different one.
Furthermore, I believe Bjarne is a member of the set of people who have asserted "arrays in C are broken beyond repair," a Class * can point at a whole ding-dang array of class objects, lined up one after the other in memory, and there is absolutely no way in C to tell whether a Class * points at one or many.
Another difference is that reference variables must be initialized. You cannot create a reference variable like what is shown in the sample code. That would produce a compiler error.
As stated you should google it, but to avoid misunderstanding:
References are NOT variables
References are NOT similar to pointers (but you can use them in a similar way)
Think of a Reference as a shortcut for the term that is assigned to it.
One additional tip that I would offer is the following:
Use references when you can, pointers when you have to. If the object is guaranteed to exist, you should probably use a reference. If it is not, then you probably have to use a pointer.
One additional advantage is that references remove ambiguity on ownership. As soon as a maintenance programmer sees a pointer, they'll start to wonder if they should delete it.
Check this example out:
// Wrapper class using a reference because the wrapped object always exists
class Wrapper
{
public:
// If the wrapped is guaranteed to exist at creation, do it this way
Wrapper(Wrapped& wrapped):_wrapped(wrapped) { /* empty */ }
// put extra methods here.
int getWrappedValue() const { return _wrapped.getValue(); }
private:
Wrapped& _wrapped; // This object always exists and is valid
};
// Wrapper class written to support a possibly non-existent wrapped object.
class Wrapper
{
public:
Wrapper(Wrapped* wrapped = 0):_wrapped(wrapped) { /* empty */
void setWrappee(WRappee* wrapped) { _wrapped = wrapped; }
int getWrappedValue() const; // Not making inline -- more complex
private:
Wrapped* _wrapped; // Always check pointer before use
};
int Wrapper::getWrappedValue() const
{
if (_wrapped)
{
return _wrapped->getValue();
}
else
{
return -1; // NOTE, this is a contrived example -- not getting into exceptions
}
}
A reference (&) is just the same as a pointer (*), except that the C++ compiler ensures it not to be NULL. However, it can still be a dangling pointer (a pointer variable that has no reference such that it is garbage and invalid for any use).
I understand that references are not pointers, but an alias to an object. However, I still don't understand what exactly this means to me as a programmer, i.e. what are references under the hood?
I think the best way to understand this would be to understand why it is I can't store a reference in a map.
I know I need to stop thinking of references as syntactic suger over pointers, just not sure how to :/
They way I understand it, references are implemented as pointers under the hood. The reason why you can't store them in a map is purely semantic; you have to initialize a reference when it's created and you can't change it afterward anymore. This doesn't mesh with the way a map works.
You should think of a reference as a 'const pointer to a non-const object':
MyObject& ~~ MyObject * const
Furthermore, a reference can only be built as an alias of something which exists (which is not necessary for a pointer, though advisable apart from NULL). This does not guarantee that the object will stay around (and indeed you might have a core when accessing an object through a reference if it is no more), consider this code:
// Falsifying a reference
MyObject& firstProblem = *((MyObject*)0);
firstProblem.do(); // undefined behavior
// Referencing something that exists no more
MyObject* anObject = new MyObject;
MyObject& secondProblem = *anObject;
delete anObject;
secondProblem.do(); // undefined behavior
Now, there are two requirements for a STL container:
T must be default constructible (a reference is not)
T must be assignable (you cannot reset a reference, though you can assign to its referee)
So, in STL containers, you have to use proxys or pointers.
Now, using pointers might prove problematic for memory handling, so you may have to:
use smart pointers (boost::shared_ptr for example)
use a specialized container: Boost Pointer Container Library
DO NOT use auto_ptr, there is a problem with assignment since it modifies the right hand operand.
Hope it helps :)
The important difference apart from the syntactic sugar is that references cannot be changed to refer to another object than the one they were initialized with. This is why they cannot be stored in maps or other containers, because containers need to be able to modify the element type they contain.
As an illustration of this:
A anObject, anotherObject;
A *pointerToA=&anObject;
A &referenceToA=anObject;
// We can change pointerToA so that it points to a different object
pointerToA=&anotherObject;
// But it is not possible to change what referenceToA points to.
// The following code might look as if it does this... but in fact,
// it assigns anotherObject to whatever referenceToA is referring to.
referenceToA=anotherObject;
// Has the same effect as
// anObject=anotherObject;
actually you can use references in a map. i don't recommend this for big projects as it might cause weird compilation errors but:
map<int, int&> no_prob;
int refered = 666;
no_prob.insert(std::pair<int, int&>(0, refered)); // works
no_prob[5] = 777; //wont compile!!!
//builds default for 5 then assings which is a problem
std::cout << no_prob[0] << std::endl; //still a problem
std::cout << no_prob.at(0) << std::endl; //works!!
so you can use map but it will be difficult to guaranty it will be used correctly, but i used this for small codes (usually competitive) codes
A container that stores a reference has to initialize all its elements when constructed and therefore is less useful.
struct container
{
string& s_; // string reference
};
int main()
{
string s { "hello" };
//container {}; // error - object has an uninitialized reference member
container c { s }; // Ok
c.s_ = "bye";
cout << s; // prints bye
}
Also, once initialized, the storage for the container elements cannot be changed. s_ will always refer to the storage of s above.
This post explains how pointers are implemented under the hood - http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/References_in_c__.aspx, which also supports sebastians answer.