holotko wrote:
> In C++ when passing values to a function we can pass values by
> "reference" like so:
>
> int foo(int& int&); // prototype for foo()
>
> main()
> {
>
> int x = 10;
> int y = 20;
> int result;
>
> result = foo(x, y); // The values of x and y passed to
>
> }
>
> And foo() defined as:
>
> int foo(int& a, int& b)
> {
> int value;
> ...
> return value;
> }
>
> One possible advantage to passing values this way is that in addition
> to returning a value to main() side effects are produced,i.e. if foo()
> modifies a or b the change will be reflected in the values of x or y
> in main, if such effects are desired.
>
> Pretty much the same effect can be easilly acheived via passing
> arguments as pointers (which is how I normally go about such a thing).
> My main 2 questions are:
>
> 1) What is the overall advantage of passing arguments this way (by
> reference), as oppsoed to using pointers , and,
None. The above code is equivalent to having `foo' declared as
int foo(int* a, int* b);
and using `*a' and `*b' in the body. C++ references are merely
`syntactic sugar' for using pointers. Personally I dislike this
feature, as it makes it harder to see what is really going on.
> 2) When passing values this way what is actually being passed to foo()
> ?? Is it the address of x & y (which would imply pretty much the same
> as using a pointer),
Yes.
> or an alias which references the adress of the args passed to
> foo()???
Yes.
Both of these seem to be the same thing to me.
--
Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
