What would be better practice when giving a function the original variable to work with:
unsigned long x = 4;
void func1(unsigned long& val) {
val = 5;
}
func1(x);
or:
void func2(unsigned long* val) {
*val = 5;
}
func2(&x);
IOW: Is there any reason to pick one over another?
My rule of thumb is:
Use pointers if you want to do pointer arithmetic with them (e.g. incrementing the pointer address to step through an array) or if you ever have to pass a NULL-pointer.
Use references otherwise.
I really think you will benefit from establishing the following function calling coding guidelines:
As in all other places, always be const-correct.
Note: This means, among other things, that only out-values (see item 3) and values passed by value (see item 4) can lack the const specifier.
Only pass a value by pointer if the value 0/NULL is a valid input in the current context.
Rationale 1: As a caller, you see that whatever you pass in must be in a usable state.
Rationale 2: As called, you know that whatever comes in is in a usable state. Hence, no NULL-check or error handling needs to be done for that value.
Rationale 3: Rationales 1 and 2 will be compiler enforced. Always catch errors at compile time if you can.
If a function argument is an out-value, then pass it by reference.
Rationale: We don't want to break item 2...
Choose "pass by value" over "pass by const reference" only if the value is a POD (Plain old Datastructure) or small enough (memory-wise) or in other ways cheap enough (time-wise) to copy.
Rationale: Avoid unnecessary copies.
Note: small enough and cheap enough are not absolute measurables.
This ultimately ends up being subjective. The discussion thus far is useful, but I don't think there is a correct or decisive answer to this. A lot will depend on style guidelines and your needs at the time.
While there are some different capabilities (whether or not something can be NULL) with a pointer, the largest practical difference for an output parameter is purely syntax. Google's C++ Style Guide (https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Reference_Arguments), for example, mandates only pointers for output parameters, and allows only references that are const. The reasoning is one of readability: something with value syntax should not have pointer semantic meaning. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily right or wrong, but I think the point here is that it's a matter of style, not of correctness.
Pointers
A pointer is a variable that holds a memory address.
A pointer declaration consists of a base type, an *, and the variable name.
A pointer can point to any number of variables in lifetime
A pointer that does not currently point to a valid memory location is given the value null (Which is zero)
BaseType* ptrBaseType;
BaseType objBaseType;
ptrBaseType = &objBaseType;
The & is a unary operator that returns the memory address of its operand.
Dereferencing operator (*) is used to access the value stored in the variable which pointer points to.
int nVar = 7;
int* ptrVar = &nVar;
int nVar2 = *ptrVar;
Reference
A reference (&) is like an alias to an existing variable.
A reference (&) is like a constant pointer that is automatically dereferenced.
It is usually used for function argument lists and function return values.
A reference must be initialized when it is created.
Once a reference is initialized to an object, it cannot be changed to refer to another object.
You cannot have NULL references.
A const reference can refer to a const int. It is done with a temporary variable with value of the const
int i = 3; //integer declaration
int * pi = &i; //pi points to the integer i
int& ri = i; //ri is refers to integer i – creation of reference and initialization
You should pass a pointer if you are going to modify the value of the variable.
Even though technically passing a reference or a pointer are the same, passing a pointer in your use case is more readable as it "advertises" the fact that the value will be changed by the function.
If you have a parameter where you may need to indicate the absence of a value, it's common practice to make the parameter a pointer value and pass in NULL.
A better solution in most cases (from a safety perspective) is to use boost::optional. This allows you to pass in optional values by reference and also as a return value.
// Sample method using optional as input parameter
void PrintOptional(const boost::optional<std::string>& optional_str)
{
if (optional_str)
{
cout << *optional_str << std::endl;
}
else
{
cout << "(no string)" << std::endl;
}
}
// Sample method using optional as return value
boost::optional<int> ReturnOptional(bool return_nothing)
{
if (return_nothing)
{
return boost::optional<int>();
}
return boost::optional<int>(42);
}
Use a reference when you can, use a pointer when you have to.
From C++ FAQ: "When should I use references, and when should I use pointers?"
A reference is an implicit pointer. Basically you can change the value the reference points to but you can't change the reference to point to something else. So my 2 cents is that if you only want to change the value of a parameter pass it as a reference but if you need to change the parameter to point to a different object pass it using a pointer.
Consider C#'s out keyword. The compiler requires the caller of a method to apply the out keyword to any out args, even though it knows already if they are. This is intended to enhance readability. Although with modern IDEs I'm inclined to think that this is a job for syntax (or semantic) highlighting.
Pass by const reference unless there is a reason you wish to change/keep the contents you are passing in.
This will be the most efficient method in most cases.
Make sure you use const on each parameter you do not wish to change, as this not only protects you from doing something stupid in the function, it gives a good indication to other users what the function does to the passed in values. This includes making a pointer const when you only want to change whats pointed to...
Pointers:
Can be assigned nullptr (or NULL).
At the call site, you must use & if your type is not a pointer itself,
making explicitly you are modifying your object.
Pointers can be rebound.
References:
Cannot be null.
Once bound, cannot change.
Callers don't need to explicitly use &. This is considered sometimes
bad because you must go to the implementation of the function to see if
your parameter is modified.
A reference is similar to a pointer, except that you don’t need to use a prefix ∗ to access the value referred to by the reference. Also, a reference cannot be made to refer to a different object after its initialization.
References are particularly useful for specifying function arguments.
for more information see "A Tour of C++" by "Bjarne Stroustrup" (2014) Pages 11-12
Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What's the difference between passing by reference vs. passing by value?
I read that in C arguments are passed by value, but what's is the difference between passing arguments by value (like in C) or by refencence (like C++ - C#)?
What's the difference between a pointer and a reference?
void with_ptr(int *i)
{ *i = 0; }
void with_ref(int &i)
{ i = 0; }
In these cases are modified both value? If yes, why C++ allows to pass arguments by reference? I think it is not clear inside the function that the i value could be modified.
what's is the difference between passing arguments by value or by reference
If you pass by value, changes to the variable will be local to the function, since the value is copied when calling the function. Modifications to reference arguments will propagate to the original value.
What's the difference between a pointer and a reference?
The difference is largely syntactic, as you have seen in your code. Furthermore, a pointer can be reassigned to point to something else (unless it’s declared const), while a reference can’t; instead, assigning to a reference is going to assign to the referenced value.
I think it is not clear inside the function that the i value could be modified.
On the contrary, it’s absolutely clear: the function signature tells you so.
There’s actually a case to be made that it’s not clear outside the function. That’s why original versions of C# for instance mandated that you explicitly annotate any by-reference calling with ref (i.e. f(ref x) instead of plain f(x)). This would be similar to calling a function in C++ using f(&x) to make it clear that a pointer is passed.
But in recent versions of C#, the use of ref for calling was made optional since it didn’t confer enough of an advantage after all.
Consider this:
1) Passing by reference provides more simple element access i instead of *i
2) Generally you cannot pass null reference to a method, but can pass a null pointer
3) You can't change the address of reference, but can change it for a pointer(although, as pointer itself passed by value, this change will be discarded upon function exit)
Hope, this helped a bit
Actually, in the first case, you can't modify the argument. The pointer itself is immutable, you can only modify the value it points to.
If yes, why C++ allows to pass arguments by reference?
Because pointers can very easily be miss-used. References should almost always be prefered. For your case, what if you pass a NULL to with_ptr? You'll get undefined behavior, which is not possible if you use with_ref.
I think it is not clear inside the function that the i value could be modified.
It is very clear. If you see a function that takes a parameter by non-const reference, you can assume it will be changed.
I think that a method can only change an argument's value, if this is passed by reference. If you pass a argument by value in a method, then whatever change you make to its value, this will no be available in the parent method.
As far as I know, I think the reference is safer to use in a sense that it can't be modified (always points to the same thing), and should be initialized if it's a local variable. Pointer, however, can be change to point to somewhere else.
int x = 10;
int &y = x;
int *p = &x;
p++; //Legal if you know what's next
y++; // Increases the value of x. Now x = y = 11;
As my two cents, I think reference variables are mere alternative names for the same memory address by which it was initialized. This also explains pretty nice:
http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~patrick/csc418/wi2004/notes/PointersVsRef.pdf
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What's the difference between passing by reference vs. passing by value?
I read that in C arguments are passed by value, but what's is the difference between passing arguments by value (like in C) or by refencence (like C++ - C#)?
What's the difference between a pointer and a reference?
void with_ptr(int *i)
{ *i = 0; }
void with_ref(int &i)
{ i = 0; }
In these cases are modified both value? If yes, why C++ allows to pass arguments by reference? I think it is not clear inside the function that the i value could be modified.
what's is the difference between passing arguments by value or by reference
If you pass by value, changes to the variable will be local to the function, since the value is copied when calling the function. Modifications to reference arguments will propagate to the original value.
What's the difference between a pointer and a reference?
The difference is largely syntactic, as you have seen in your code. Furthermore, a pointer can be reassigned to point to something else (unless it’s declared const), while a reference can’t; instead, assigning to a reference is going to assign to the referenced value.
I think it is not clear inside the function that the i value could be modified.
On the contrary, it’s absolutely clear: the function signature tells you so.
There’s actually a case to be made that it’s not clear outside the function. That’s why original versions of C# for instance mandated that you explicitly annotate any by-reference calling with ref (i.e. f(ref x) instead of plain f(x)). This would be similar to calling a function in C++ using f(&x) to make it clear that a pointer is passed.
But in recent versions of C#, the use of ref for calling was made optional since it didn’t confer enough of an advantage after all.
Consider this:
1) Passing by reference provides more simple element access i instead of *i
2) Generally you cannot pass null reference to a method, but can pass a null pointer
3) You can't change the address of reference, but can change it for a pointer(although, as pointer itself passed by value, this change will be discarded upon function exit)
Hope, this helped a bit
Actually, in the first case, you can't modify the argument. The pointer itself is immutable, you can only modify the value it points to.
If yes, why C++ allows to pass arguments by reference?
Because pointers can very easily be miss-used. References should almost always be prefered. For your case, what if you pass a NULL to with_ptr? You'll get undefined behavior, which is not possible if you use with_ref.
I think it is not clear inside the function that the i value could be modified.
It is very clear. If you see a function that takes a parameter by non-const reference, you can assume it will be changed.
I think that a method can only change an argument's value, if this is passed by reference. If you pass a argument by value in a method, then whatever change you make to its value, this will no be available in the parent method.
As far as I know, I think the reference is safer to use in a sense that it can't be modified (always points to the same thing), and should be initialized if it's a local variable. Pointer, however, can be change to point to somewhere else.
int x = 10;
int &y = x;
int *p = &x;
p++; //Legal if you know what's next
y++; // Increases the value of x. Now x = y = 11;
As my two cents, I think reference variables are mere alternative names for the same memory address by which it was initialized. This also explains pretty nice:
http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~patrick/csc418/wi2004/notes/PointersVsRef.pdf
I'm new to the C++ community, and just have a quick question about how C++ passes variables by reference to functions.
When you want to pass a variable by reference in C++, you add an & to whatever argument you want to pass by reference. How come when you assign a value to a variable that is being passed by reference why do you say variable = value; instead of saying *variable = value?
void add_five_to_variable(int &value) {
// If passing by reference uses pointers,
// then why wouldn't you say *value += 5?
// Or does C++ do some behind the scene stuff here?
value += 5;
}
int main() {
int i = 1;
add_five_to_variable(i);
cout << i << endl; // i = 6
return 0;
}
If C++ is using pointers to do this with behind the scenes magic, why aren't dereferences needed like with pointers? Any insight would be much appreciated.
When you write,
int *p = ...;
*p = 3;
That is syntax for assigning 3 to the object referred to by the pointer p. When you write,
int &r = ...;
r = 3;
That is syntax for assigning 3 to the object referred to by the reference r. The syntax and the implementation are different. References are implemented using pointers (except when they're optimized out), but the syntax is different.
So you could say that the dereferencing happens automatically, when needed.
C++ uses pointers behind the scenes but hides all that complication from you. Passing by reference also enables you to avoid all the problems asssoicated with invalid pointers.
When you pass an object to a function by reference, you manipulate the object directly in the function, without referring to its address like with pointers. Thus, when manipulating this variable, you don't want to dereference it with the *variable syntax. This is good practice to pass objects by reference because:
A reference can't be redefined to point to another object
It can't be null. you have to pass a valid object of that type to the function
How the compiler achieves the "pass by reference" is not really relevant in your case.
The article in Wikipedia is a good ressource.
There are two questions in one, it seems:
one question is about syntax: the difference between pointer and reference
the other is about mechanics and implementation: the in-memory representation of a reference
Let's address the two separately.
Syntax of references and pointers
A pointer is, conceptually, a "sign" (as road sign) toward an object. It allows 2 kind of actions:
actions on the pointee (or object pointed to)
actions on the pointer itself
The operator* and operator-> allow you to access the pointee, to differenciate it from your accesses to the pointer itself.
A reference is not a "sign", it's an alias. For the duration of its life, come hell or high water, it will point to the same object, nothing you can do about it. Therefore, since you cannot access the reference itself, there is no point it bothering you with weird syntax * or ->. Ironically, not using weird syntax is called syntactic sugar.
Mechanics of a reference
The C++ Standard is silent on the implementation of references, it merely hints that if the compiler can it is allowed to remove them. For example, in the following case:
int main() {
int a = 0;
int& b = a;
b = 1;
return b;
}
A good compiler will realize that b is just a proxy for a, no room for doubts, and thus simply directly access a and optimize b out.
As you guessed, a likely representation of a reference is (under the hood) a pointer, but do not let it bother you, it does not affect the syntax or semantics. It does mean however that a number of woes of pointers (like access to objects that have been deleted for example) also affect references.
The explicit dereference is not required by design - that's for convenience. When you use . on a reference the compiler emits code necessary to access the real object - this will often include dereferencing a pointer, but that's done without requiring an explicit dereference in your code.
I was studying pointers references and came across different ways to feed in parameters. Can someone explain what each one actually means?
I think the first one is simple, it's that x is a copy of the parameter fed in so another variable is created on the stack.
As for the others I'm clueless.
void doSomething1(int x){
//code
}
void doSomething2(int *x){
//code
}
void doSomething3(int &x){
//code
}
void doSomething3(int const &x){
//code
}
I also see stuff like this when variables are declared. I don't understand the differences between them. I know that the first one will put 100 into the variable y on the stack. It won't create a new address or anything.
//example 1
int y = 100;
//example 2
int *y = 100;
//Example 3: epic confusion!
int *y = &z;
Question 1: How do I use these methods? When is it most appropriate?
Question 2: When do I declare variables in that way?
Examples would be great.
P.S. this is one the main reasons I didn't learn C++ as Java just has garbage collection. But now I have to get into C++.
//example 1
int y = 100;
//example 2
int *y = 100;
//Example 3: epic confusion!
int *y = &z;
I think the problem for most students is that in C++ both & and * have different meanings, depending on the context in which they are used.
If either of them appears after a type within an object declaration (T* or T&), they are type modifiers and change the type from plain T to a reference to a T (T&) or a pointer to a T (T*).
If they appear in front of an object (&obj or *obj), they are unary prefix operators invoked on the object. The prefix & returns the address of the object it is invoked for, * dereferences a pointer, iterator etc., yielding the value it references.
It doesn't help against confusion that the type modifiers apply to the object being declared, not the type. That is, T* a, b; defines a T* named a and a plain T named b, which is why many people prefer to write T *a, b; instead (note the placement of the type-modifying * adjacent the object being defined, instead of the type modified).
Also unhelpful is that the term "reference" is overloaded. For one thing it means a syntactic construct, as in T&. But there's also the broader meaning of a "reference" being something that refers to something else. In this sense, both a pointer T* and a reference (other meaning T&) are references, in that they reference some object. That comes into play when someone says that "a pointer references some object" or that a pointer is "dereferenced".
So in your specific cases, #1 defines a plain int, #2 defines a pointer to an int and initializes it with the address 100 (whatever lives there is probably best left untouched ), and #3 defines another pointer and initializes it with the address of an object z (necessarily an int, too).
A for how to pass objects to functions in C++, here is an old answer from me to that.
From Scott Myers - More Effective C++ -> 1
First, recognize that there is no such thing as a null reference. A reference must always refer to some object.Because a reference must refer to an object, C++ requires that references be initialized.
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.
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
In general, you should use a pointer whenever you need to take into account the possibility that there's nothing to refer to (in which case you can set the pointer to null) or whenever you need to be able to refer to different things at different times (in which case you can change where the pointer points). You should use a reference whenever you know there will always be an object to refer to and you also know that once you're referring to that object, you'll never want to refer to anything else.
References, then, are the feature of choice when you know you have something to refer to, when you'll never want to refer to anything else, and when implementing operators whose syntactic requirements make the use of pointers undesirable. In all other cases, stick with pointers.
Read S.Lippmann's C++ Premier or any other good C++ book.
As for passing the parameters, generally when copying is cheap we pass by value. For mandatory out parameters we use references, for optional out parameters - pointers, for input parameters where copying is costly, we pass by const references
Thats really complicated topic. Please read here: http://www.goingware.com/tips/parameters/.
Also Scott Meiers "Effective C++" is a top book on such things.
void doSomething1(int x){
//code
}
This one pass the variable by value, whatever happens inside the function, the original variable doesn't change
void doSomething2(int *x){
//code
}
Here you pass a variable of type pointer to integer. So when accessing the number you should use *x for the value or x for the address
void doSomething3(int &x){
//code
}
Here is like the first one, but whatever happens inside the function, the original variable will be changed as well
int y = 100;
normal integer
//example 2
int *y = 100;
pointer to address 100
//Example 3: epic confusion!
int *y = &z;
pointer to the address of z
void doSomething1(int x){
//code
}
void doSomething2(int *x){
//code
}
void doSomething3(int &x){
//code
}
And i am really getting confused between them?
The first is using pass-by-value and the argument to the function will retain its original value after the call.
The later two are using pass-by-reference. Essentially they are two ways of achieving the same thing. The argument is not guarenteed to retain its original value after the call.
Most programmers prefer to pass large objects by const reference to improve the performance of their code and provide a constraint that the value will not change. This ensures the copy constructor is not called.
Your confusion might be due to the '&' operator having two meanings. The one you seem to be familiar with is the 'reference operator'. It is also used as the 'address operator'. In the example you give you are taking the address of z.
A good book to check out that covers all of this in detail is 'Accelerated C++' by Andrew Koening.
The best time to use those methods is when it's more efficient to pass around references as opposed to entire objects. Sometimes, some data structure operations are also faster using references (inserting into a linked list for example). The best way to understand pointers is to read about them and then write programs to use them (and compare them to their pass-by-value counterparts).
And for the record, knowledge of pointers makes you considerably more valuable in the workplace. (all too often, C++ programmers are the "mystics" of the office, with knowledge of how those magical boxes under the desks process code /semi-sarcasm)
Is there some kind of subtle difference between those:
void a1(float &b) {
b=1;
};
a1(b);
and
void a1(float *b) {
(*b)=1;
};
a1(&b);
?
They both do the same (or so it seems from main() ), but the first one is obviously shorter, however most of the code I see uses second notation. Is there a difference? Maybe in case it's some object instead of float?
Both do the same, but one uses references and one uses pointers.
See my answer here for a comprehensive list of all the differences.
Yes. The * notation says that what's being pass on the stack is a pointer, ie, address of something. The & says it's a reference. The effect is similar but not identical:
Let's take two cases:
void examP(int* ip);
void examR(int& i);
int i;
If I call examP, I write
examP(&i);
which takes the address of the item and passes it on the stack. If I call examR,
examR(i);
I don't need it; now the compiler "somehow" passes a reference -- which practically means it gets and passes the address of i. On the code side, then
void examP(int* ip){
*ip += 1;
}
I have to make sure to dereference the pointer. ip += 1 does something very different.
void examR(int& i){
i += 1;
}
always updates the value of i.
For more to think about, read up on "call by reference" versus "call by value". The & notion gives C++ call by reference.
In the first example with references, you know that b can't be NULL. With the pointer example, b might be the NULL pointer.
However, note that it is possible to pass a NULL object through a reference, but it's awkward and the called procedure can assume it's an error to have done so:
a1(*(float *)NULL);
In the second example the caller has to prefix the variable name with '&' to pass the address of the variable.
This may be an advantage - the caller cannot inadvertently modify a variable by passing it as a reference when they thought they were passing by value.
Aside from syntactic sugar, the only real difference is the ability for a function parameter that is a pointer to be null. So the pointer version can be more expressive if it handles the null case properly. The null case can also have some special meaning attached to it. The reference version can only operate on values of the type specified without a null capability.
Functionally in your example, both versions do the same.
The first has the advantage that it's transparent on the call-side. Imagine how it would look for an operator:
cin >> &x;
And how it looks ugly for a swap invocation
swap(&a, &b);
You want to swap a and b. And it looks much better than when you first have to take the address. Incidentally, bjarne stroustrup writes that the major reason for references was the transparency that was added at the call side - especially for operators. Also see how it's not obvious anymore whether the following
&a + 10
Would add 10 to the content of a, calling the operator+ of it, or whether it adds 10 to a temporary pointer to a. Add that to the impossibility that you cannot overload operators for only builtin operands (like a pointer and an integer). References make this crystal clear.
Pointers are useful if you want to be able to put a "null":
a1(0);
Then in a1 the method can compare the pointer with 0 and see whether the pointer points to any object.
One big difference worth noting is what's going on outside, you either have:
a1(something);
or:
a1(&something);
I like to pass arguments by reference (always a const one :) ) when they are not modified in the function/method (and then you can also pass automatic/temporary objects inside) and pass them by pointer to signify and alert the user/reader of the code calling the method that the argument may and probably is intentionally modified inside.