Reference to a Pointer

Passing references to pointers in C++

Your function expects a reference to an actual string pointer in the calling scope, not an anonymous string pointer. Thus:

string s;
string* _s = &s;
myfunc(_s);

should compile just fine.

However, this is only useful if you intend to modify the pointer you pass to the function. If you intend to modify the string itself you should use a reference to the string as Sake suggested. With that in mind it should be more obvious why the compiler complains about you original code. In your code the pointer is created 'on the fly', modifying that pointer would have no consequence and that is not what is intended. The idea of a reference (vs. a pointer) is that a reference always points to an actual object.

Difference between pointer to a reference and reference to a pointer

First, a reference to a pointer is like a reference to any other variable:

void fun(int*& ref_to_ptr)
{
    ref_to_ptr = 0; // set the "passed" pointer to 0
    // if the pointer is not passed by ref,
    // then only the copy(parameter) you received is set to 0,
    // but the original pointer(outside the function) is not affected.
}

A pointer to reference is illegal in C++, because -unlike a pointer- a reference is just a concept that allows the programmer to make aliases of something else. A pointer is a place in memory that has the address of something else, but a reference is NOT.

Now the last point might not be crystal clear, if you insist on dealing with references as pointers. e.g.:

int x;
int& rx = x; // from now on, rx is just like x.
// Unlike pointers, refs are not real objects in memory.
int* p = &x; // Ok
int* pr = ℞ // OK! but remember that rx is just x!
// i.e. rx is not something that exists alone, it has to refer to something else.
if( p == pr ) // true!
{ ... }

As you can see from the above code, when we use the reference, we are not dealing with something separated from what it refers to. So, the address of a reference is just the address of what it refers to. Thats why there is no such thing called the address of the reference in terms of what you are talking about.

Is it possible to define a pointer to a reference?

The quote is right, since you're making a pointer pointing to the original object, not its reference. The code below shows this fact:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main() {
  int a = 0;
  // two references referring to same object
  int& ref1_a = a;
  int& ref2_a = a;
  // creating a different pointer for each reference
  int* ptr_to_ref1 = &ref1_a;
  int* ptr_to_ref2 = &ref2_a;

  printf("org: %p 1: %p 2: %p\n", &a, ptr_to_ref1, ptr_to_ref2);

  return 0;
}

output:

org: 0x7fff083c917c 1: 0x7fff083c917c 2: 0x7fff083c917c

If you said you're able to make a pointer for reference, then the above output should be different.

Difference between pointer-to-pointer vs reference-to-pointer (C++)

The first example is that of a reference to a pointer, ie. a reference to a type IEnumWbemClassObject*:

HRESULT Query ( IN BSTR sQuery, OUT IEnumWbemClassObject* &pEnumerator );

Therefore if pEnumerator is declared as a IEnumWbemClassObject* (which I'm assuming it is), you don't need to explicitly pass the address of pEnumerator to the function or dereference the variable inside the function in order to change where pEnumerator points (which would otherwise be required with an argument of IEnumWbemClassObject**).

A reference to a pointer has the same behaviour as a reference to any other type, just think of the above example as being a "reference to a pointer" and not a "pointer to a reference." There's no such thing as a pointer to a reference.

When to use references vs. pointers

Use reference wherever you can, pointers wherever you must.

Avoid pointers until you can't.

The reason is that pointers make things harder to follow/read, less safe and far more dangerous manipulations than any other constructs.

So the rule of thumb is to use pointers only if there is no other choice.

For example, returning a pointer to an object is a valid option when the function can return nullptr in some cases and it is assumed it will. That said, a better option would be to use something similar to std::optional (requires C++17; before that, there's boost::optional).

Another example is to use pointers to raw memory for specific memory manipulations. That should be hidden and localized in very narrow parts of the code, to help limit the dangerous parts of the whole code base.

In your example, there is no point in using a pointer as argument because:

1. if you provide nullptr as the argument, you're going in undefined-behaviour-land;
2. the reference attribute version doesn't allow (without easy to spot tricks) the problem with 1.
3. the reference attribute version is simpler to understand for the user: you have to provide a valid object, not something that could be null.

If the behaviour of the function would have to work with or without a given object, then using a pointer as attribute suggests that you can pass nullptr as the argument and it is fine for the function. That's kind of a contract between the user and the implementation.

How do we store a reference to an object in the pointer?

toBePassed is a reference, not a pointer. So you actually need the & operator (address of operator), not the * operator (dereference operator):

myObjP = &toBePassed;

Note: You're not really storing a reference in a pointer. You're just storing a regular pointer to the object that is being referenced.

---

Related Topics