Pass object to function

Hey guys

Im learning the more advanced parts of OOP slowly now and my book asks me as an exercise to pass a class object to another function then show its value.

I have done so, as shown below, but I am no happy with the way my book says not to use references when passing objects. Do you think I should look up passing an object by reference instead? I am ok with pointers and references, but nowhere in my book does it explain how to pass an object by reference using '&'.

Here is my answer for the exercise, It does work but I feel what I have done is unsafe.

Code:

---

#include <iostream>

class NumberTeller
{
public:
  NumberTeller() { setNumber(); }
  ~NumberTeller() {}
     
  void setNumber() { int number = 5; m_Number = number; }
  int getNumber() const { return m_Number; }
     
private:
  int m_Number;
};

void showNumber ( NumberTeller *nm );

int main()
{
    NumberTeller *nm = new NumberTeller;
   
    showNumber ( nm );
   
    delete nm;
    nm = NULL;
   
    std::cin.get();
   
    return 0;
}

void showNumber ( NumberTeller *nm )
{
  std::cout << "Value of number: " << nm->getNumber();
}

---

Why would your book tell you not to pass objects by reference. There is nothing wrong with that.

Example Reference Code:

Code:

---

#include <iostream>
using std::cout;

class CObject
{
public:
        CObject()
        {
                mValue = -1;
        }

        void SetValue(const int value)
        {
                mValue = value;
        }

        const int GetValue() const
        {
                return mValue;
        }
private:
        int mValue;
}

int main(void)
{
        CObject instance;
       
        cout<<instance.GetValue();

        //You don't have to pass the value a special way.
        passObjectFunction(instance);

        cout<<instance.GetValue();
}

//This is a function that accepts a reference.
void passObjectFunction(CObject &instance)
{
        instance.SetValue(20);
}

---

Quote:

---

I have done so, as shown below, but I am no happy with the way my book says not to use references when passing objects.

---

So am I. What book is that?

Quote:

---

Do you think I should look up passing an object by reference instead?

---

Yes, since it makes more sense in this case, especially since dynamic memory allocation is not necessary here.

Quote:

---

It does work but I feel what I have done is unsafe.

---

I do not think it is unsafe. The setNumber() function is rather strange though, since typically you would take the new value as an argument. You might also use an initialisation list in the constructor instead.

As an example of eliminating dynamic memory allocation and using pass by reference:

Code:

---

void showNumber ( const NumberTeller& nm );

int main()
{
    NumberTeller nm;
   
    showNumber ( nm );
   
    std::cin.get();
   
    return 0;
}

void showNumber ( const NumberTeller& nm )
{
    std::cout << "Value of number: " << nm.getNumber();
}

---

The beauty of references is that you only need to tell the compiler it's a reference in the argument list. Then you can use it as if you passed it by value.
I also find it quite silly that it would tell you to pass the object by value. When it comes to objects, I always pass them by const reference (if there's no need to modify them).

Thank you so much for the examples and advice guys. That seems a much cleaner way to do things.

Yes, references is what you should use for these sort of things.

I can't understand why a book would suggest otherwise - there's no sane reason for that. Internally (when the compiler done it's job) both are identical, but there's stricter rules about references, and the syntax is easier. The only point about using references that I don't like is that the reference isn't visible in the calling code, so you can't see that it's a reference.

--
Mats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

The beauty of references is that you only need to tell the compiler it's a reference in the argument list. Then you can use it as if you passed it by value.

---

The ugly part is when you have to declare reference to a pointer :confused:

Quote:

---

I also find it quite silly that it would tell you to pass the object by value. When it comes to objects, I always pass them by const reference (if there's no need to modify them).

---

- Avoid passing local objects by reference, especially when the caller exits before the callee.
- The object is static and you want a new copy to pass and not the static object which can be overwritten on a later function call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manav

The ugly part is when you have to declare reference to a pointer :confused:

---

Not necessarily:

Code:

---

void foo(int*& mypointer)

---

Quote:

---

- Avoid passing local objects by reference, especially when the caller exits before the callee.

---

I think that one is a sin not related to references. Same thing happens when you pass it by pointer, as well.

Quote:

---

- The object is static and you want a new copy to pass and not the static object which can be overwritten on a later function call.

---

It can't be overwritten if you pass it as const.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Not necessarily:

Code:

---

void foo(int*& mypointer)

---

---

I meant confusing.

Code:

---

int*p or int *p // which is correct?
int *p, *q or int* p, q // now? which is correct?
now:
why int*& p and why not int &*p, &*q // ???

---

Quote:

---

I think that one is a sin not related to references. Same thing happens when you pass it by pointer, as well.

---

I was citing example when not to pass by reference. Of course you are right too.

Quote:

---

It can't be overwritten if you pass it as const.

---

Dang!
I meant something like this:

Code:

---

void f(int i) {
  static Foo obj;
  obj.i = i;
  byRef(obj);
  obj.i *= 2; // The passed reference is also changed?
}

---

Now sure what you're getting at with some of them, but...

Code:

---

int*p or int *p // which is correct?

---

Both are pointers of type int*.
(This is also why I like int* p)

Quote:

---

int *p, *q or int* p, q // now? which is correct?

---

p and q are pointers of type int*
And the second, only p is a pointer to int*, q is only an int.
(On a side note, this is why I always define pointers on separate lines.)

Code:

---

why int*& p and why not int &*p, &*q // ???

---

The first is easy:
A reference is a link to a type. So if you want a reference to something, first you type the type, then the reference sign, so to make a reference to a pointer, write the type of the pointer first, in this case, int*, and then write a &, so it becomes int*&.
As for the second, put all of them on separate lines and it will not become confusing anymore.

Quote:

---

Dang!
I meant something like this:

Code:

---

void f(int i) {
  static Foo obj;
  obj.i = i;
  byRef(obj);
  obj.i *= 2; // The passed reference is also changed?
}

---

---

Yes, the reference is also changed because it's a link to the original value which you just changed.
But usually the purpose of passing a reference in this circumstance (assuming it's const) is so that the function should be able to track any changes made to the original value. The function can, for example, signal another function to do a different behaviour.
If it's passed by non-const, then it's usually that the function you pass it to wants to change the original variable.

swgh, maybe references are covered later in your book?