Thread: passing string to function

Interestingly, someone from another message board community sent me an email recently with this message:

Originally Posted by lab1

I saw you mentioned before that most compilers will not do extra copies when passing by value instead of const reference if the value is not changed. Do you know how intelligent the optimizer is? Like how deep in the code will it check this?

I do not recall what exactly I stated, but what I do recall quoting from Meyers is that if you use pass by value when you intend to make a copy anyway, the compiler may be able to better optimise the code.

I reason that if you do not intend to make a copy, then relying on compiler optimisation to elide the copy construction seems like unnecessary risk, and you are also not stating what you mean ("I know that it looks like I want to copy, but actually I don't want to copy").

Originally Posted by R.Stiltskin

Good point. I suppose making it explicitly const is clearer. Thanks.

Furthermore with the const in the argument declaration, you're also following const correctness paradigms. If you go without the const, you won't be able to pass a const string to your function without an unnecessary cast (your function doesn't change the argument after all).
Best practice, afaik, is to make everything const that you don't intend to change, i.e. arguments, STL iterators, etc.

QuantumPete

Originally Posted by QuantumPete

If you go without the const, you won't be able to pass a const string to your function without an unnecessary cast (your function doesn't change the argument after all).

Since pass by value is the alternative under consideration, that is not true, as a copy of the const object would be made.