Passing by reference... is it safe in this case?

Discussion in 'C++' started by Guest, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hi, quick question:

    I have a function which takes a reference to an object as an argument.

    void foo( vect3 & v );

    This works fine:
    vect3 v1(0.0, 0.0, 0.0);

    This also works fine, in VC++ .NET:
    foo(vect3(0.0, 0.0, 0.0))

    g++ has a fit with the second one though. I can see why it might, since the vect3() constructed object won't last very long. But my question is, does the C++ standard state somewhere that the object will last long enough for the function to evaluate it (by referencing it!) ?


    P.S. I've posted here a lot in the past, and as far as I can remember, every post, someone has pointed out that's my post belongs in another group. I think this question is finally on-topic! ;-)
    Guest, Jan 26, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Mark P Guest

    g++ is correct in identifying this as an error. Had you declared foo
    instead as:

    void foo (vect3& const v);

    then this would be permissible.

    Likewise you could pass by value rather than by reference:

    void foo (vect3 v);
    Mark P, Jan 26, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Shark Guest

    You should not pass temporary objects by reference unless the reference
    is a const. Because by the time the code gets to look at the non const
    temporary object that was referenced, the temporary object may or may
    not exists. This will wipe out your hard drive or cause you to burst
    into flames. Demons may also fly out of your nose.
    Shark, Jan 26, 2006
  4. Guest

    Pete Becker Guest

    The temporary object lasts until the end of the full statement in which
    it was created. There is no problem with the lifetime of temporary
    objects passed to functions. The issue is that making changes to a
    temporary object might not make sense, since it's going to go away very
    Pete Becker, Jan 26, 2006
  5. Guest

    Rolf Magnus Guest

    Yes, it will. However, the reason why g++ complains is that the C++ standard
    says that you can't bind a temporary to a non-const reference.
    Yes, it is ;-)
    Rolf Magnus, Jan 26, 2006
  6. Guest

    Marcus Kwok Guest

    Actually, this should be

    void foo(vect3 const& v);

    What you wrote says that v is a const reference to a vect3, which is
    nonsense since all references are const. Mine says that v is a
    reference to a const vect3.
    Marcus Kwok, Jan 26, 2006
  7. Guest

    JustBoo Guest

    [18.7] Does "Fred& const x" make any sense?
    No, it is nonsense.

    Thank you. I'm sitting here reading about non-const references in this
    thread and I was befuddled. "Did they change the way references work?"
    I thought. I didn't want to look "stoopid" so I didn't respond. I was
    going to go look it up and you did that. Thanks again. :)

    "If you go flying back through time, and you see somebody else flying
    forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye contact."
    - Jack Handey
    JustBoo, Jan 26, 2006
  8. Guest

    Mark P Guest

    Ah, yes, of course and thank you. I ordinarily write this as (const
    vect3& v) but my brain appears to have flickered off last night.
    Mark P, Jan 26, 2006
  9. Guest

    Bo Persson Guest

    And so will the other compiler, if you set the switches correctly (/Za
    in particular).

    Bo Persson
    Bo Persson, Jan 26, 2006
  10. Guest

    David Harmon Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:12:14 -0500 in comp.lang.c++, Pete Becker
    So let us remove from C++ everything else that can be used in a way
    that "might not make sense".
    David Harmon, Jan 27, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.