I’ve used C but never C++. What does it mean for a variable’s type to be int&? From when I’ve used it, & would be used to create a pointer to a variable, but the type of that pointer would be int*.
edit:
never mind, I looked it up. It’s a “reference” instead of a pointer. Similar, but unlike a pointer it doesn’t create a distinct variable in memory of its own.
In my experience, it’s rare to see int& in day to day as a regular old lvalue… it essentially just allows you to alias a variable to another name. It’s much more common to see them used in function parameters to leverage pass by reference. In C++ pointers usually aren’t particularly useful compared to just passing things by reference since stack variables get auto-gc’d it’s the preferred style of frameworks like Qt and is extremely easy to use.
never mind, I looked it up. It’s a “reference” instead of a pointer. Similar, but unlike a pointer it doesn’t create a distinct variable in memory of its own.
I’m almost sure it does create a distinct variable in memory. Internally it’s still a pointer, specifically a const pointer (not to be confused with a pointer to a const value; it’s the address that does not change). Think about it as a pointer that is only ever dereferenced and never used as a pointer. So yes, like the other commenter said, like an alias.
I don’t think references are variables: you can’t modify them, and AFAIR you can’t have pointers to them, with the possible but unlikely exception of non-static member references.
For references within a scope, you’re probably right. For references that cross scope boundaries (i.e. function parameters), they necessarily must consume memory (or a register). Passing a parameter to a function call consumes memory or a register by definition. If a function call is inlined, that means its instructions are copy-pasted to the call location so there’s no actual call in the compiled code.
An int& reference is just as much of a variable as int* const would be (a const pointer to a non-const int). “Variable” might be a misnomer here, but it takes just as much memory as any other pointer.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
I’ve used C but never C++. What does it mean for a variable’s type to be
int&? From when I’ve used it,&would be used to create a pointer to a variable, but the type of that pointer would beint*.edit:
never mind, I looked it up. It’s a “reference” instead of a pointer. Similar, but unlike a pointer it doesn’t create a distinct variable in memory of its own.
In my experience, it’s rare to see
int&in day to day as a regular old lvalue… it essentially just allows you to alias a variable to another name. It’s much more common to see them used in function parameters to leverage pass by reference. In C++ pointers usually aren’t particularly useful compared to just passing things by reference since stack variables get auto-gc’d it’s the preferred style of frameworks like Qt and is extremely easy to use.Here’s a breakdown if you want more information https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/reference
I’m almost sure it does create a distinct variable in memory. Internally it’s still a pointer, specifically a const pointer (not to be confused with a pointer to a const value; it’s the address that does not change). Think about it as a pointer that is only ever dereferenced and never used as a pointer. So yes, like the other commenter said, like an alias.
I don’t think references are variables: you can’t modify them, and AFAIR you can’t have pointers to them, with the possible but unlikely exception of non-static member references.
For references within a scope, you’re probably right. For references that cross scope boundaries (i.e. function parameters), they necessarily must consume memory (or a register). Passing a parameter to a function call consumes memory or a register by definition. If a function call is inlined, that means its instructions are copy-pasted to the call location so there’s no actual call in the compiled code.
An
int&reference is just as much of a variable asint* constwould be (a const pointer to a non-const int). “Variable” might be a misnomer here, but it takes just as much memory as any other pointer.Crazy Diamond Inheritance!
Don’t see it. Could somebody give me a pointer?