Thread: reference doesn't work?

>> why can't I do with a reference?
Why do you want to do it with a reference? What do you think will happen that will make things better? What would be the point? Why? Your code is exactly the same whether you use a reference or a pointer except for the declaration of q which uses & or *. Everything else is the same. Why do you think a reference is "better"?

>> You can and should do it with a reference.
No. You should use a pointer. There is no reason to use a reference to a pointer to point to an array. Just use a regular pointer.

Just try to understand the difference between reference and pointer. I don't want to step into an error area without knowing beforehand...

Originally Posted by siavoshkc

Why you are insisting in using a reference?

Come on: there're plenty of codes where the argument of a function takes the form like this:

Code:

 

double f(/*some class of array type*/ &x) {
}

Why do they use reference instead of a pointer?

Originally Posted by Daved

>> why can't I do with a reference?
Why do you want to do it with a reference? What do you think will happen that will make things better? What would be the point? Why? Your code is exactly the same whether you use a reference or a pointer except for the declaration of q which uses & or *. Everything else is the same. Why do you think a reference is "better"?

>> You can and should do it with a reference.
No. You should use a pointer. There is no reason to use a reference to a pointer to point to an array. Just use a regular pointer.

>> Come on: there're plenty of codes where the argument of a function takes the form like this:
>> double f(/*some class of array type*/ &x)
No, there isn't. That code does not happen because you cannot have a reference to an array. I think you are confused.

Again, if a reference did work, your code would be the same as it is with the pointer, so the question is what benefit would a reference have? Are you just trying to follow a rule like the one Mario F. posted? Why do you think a reference would work?

>> Oh I don't know. I'm just quoting from the man who invented the language. What does he know?
You are misusing that quote. It doesn't apply in this situation.

For the codes that have already used reference argument, do you think I have to change them to pointers?
If reference cannot apply to array the same as a pointer does, then I think I'm confused...

Originally Posted by Daved

>> Come on: there're plenty of codes where the argument of a function takes the form like this:
>> double f(/*some class of array type*/ &x)
No, there isn't. That code does not happen because you cannot have a reference to an array. I think you are confused.

Again, if a reference did work, your code would be the same as it is with the pointer, so the question is what benefit would a reference have? Are you just trying to follow a rule like the one Mario F. posted? Why do you think a reference would work?

>> Oh I don't know. I'm just quoting from the man who invented the language. What does he know?
You are misusing that quote. It doesn't apply in this situation.

What code that uses a reference argument? Can you give an example? Any code that takes a reference should not be expecting an array, so trying to pass an array to it shouldn't make sense anyway.

I found be writing as

Code:

int* &bar

is much clearer than

Code:

int  *&bar

I also notice in Stroustrop's book, he always write in the first way. Can all compilers handle that without confusion?

Originally Posted by Mario F.

So to create a reference to it, you simply do as you would normally. int* &bar = foo.

asmileguo, there is no reason to use int* &bar, int *&bar, or int*& bar. Use int* bar. If you don't understand why, please say so. If you have a particular situation that you think it is better, please post an example, because in all the code in this thread there is no reason to use a reference to a pointer. I think Mario F now agrees with me, too.