Is the practice of returning a C++ reference variable evil?(返回 C++ 引用变量的做法是否邪恶?)
问题描述
This is a little subjective I think; I'm not sure if the opinion will be unanimous (I've seen a lot of code snippets where references are returned).
According to a comment toward this question I just asked, regarding initializing references, returning a reference can be evil because, [as I understand] it makes it easier to miss deleting it, which can lead to memory leaks.
This worries me, as I have followed examples (unless I'm imagining things) and done this in a fair few places... Have I misunderstood? Is it evil? If so, just how evil?
I feel that because of my mixed bag of pointers and references, combined with the fact that I'm new to C++, and total confusion over what to use when, my applications must be memory leak hell...
Also, I understand that using smart/shared pointers is generally accepted as the best way to avoid memory leaks.
In general, returning a reference is perfectly normal and happens all the time.
If you mean:
int& getInt() {
int i;
return i; // DON'T DO THIS.
}
That is all sorts of evil. The stack-allocated i
will go away and you are referring to nothing. This is also evil:
int& getInt() {
int* i = new int;
return *i; // DON'T DO THIS.
}
Because now the client has to eventually do the strange:
int& myInt = getInt(); // note the &, we cannot lose this reference!
delete &myInt; // must delete...totally weird and evil
int oops = getInt();
delete &oops; // undefined behavior, we're wrongly deleting a copy, not the original
Note that rvalue references are still just references, so all the evil applications remain the same.
If you want to allocate something that lives beyond the scope of the function, use a smart pointer (or in general, a container):
std::unique_ptr<int> getInt() {
return std::make_unique<int>(0);
}
And now the client stores a smart pointer:
std::unique_ptr<int> x = getInt();
References are also okay for accessing things where you know the lifetime is being kept open on a higher-level, e.g.:
struct immutableint {
immutableint(int i) : i_(i) {}
const int& get() const { return i_; }
private:
int i_;
};
Here we know it's okay to return a reference to i_
because whatever is calling us manages the lifetime of the class instance, so i_
will live at least that long.
And of course, there's nothing wrong with just:
int getInt() {
return 0;
}
If the lifetime should be left up to the caller, and you're just computing the value.
Summary: it's okay to return a reference if the lifetime of the object won't end after the call.
这篇关于返回 C++ 引用变量的做法是否邪恶?的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持编程学习网!
本文标题为:返回 C++ 引用变量的做法是否邪恶?
- 一起使用 MPI 和 OpenCV 时出现分段错误 2022-01-01
- 与 int by int 相比,为什么执行 float by float 矩阵乘法更快? 2021-01-01
- Stroustrup 的 Simple_window.h 2022-01-01
- 近似搜索的工作原理 2021-01-01
- 从python回调到c++的选项 2022-11-16
- C++ 协变模板 2021-01-01
- 如何对自定义类的向量使用std::find()? 2022-11-07
- 使用/clr 时出现 LNK2022 错误 2022-01-01
- 静态初始化顺序失败 2022-01-01
- STL 中有 dereference_iterator 吗? 2022-01-01