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?
基础教程推荐
- CString 到 char* 2021-01-01
- 非静态 const 成员,不能使用默认赋值运算符 2022-10-09
- 为什么 typeid.name() 使用 GCC 返回奇怪的字符以及如 2022-09-16
- 我应该对 C++ 中的成员变量和函数参数使用相同的名称吗? 2021-01-01
- 为什么 RegOpenKeyEx() 在 Vista 64 位上返回错误代码 2021-01-01
- 为什么派生模板类不能访问基模板类的标识符? 2021-01-01
- GDB 显示调用堆栈上函数地址的当前编译二进制文 2022-09-05
- 初始化列表*参数*评估顺序 2021-01-01
- 通过引用传递 C++ 迭代器有什么问题? 2022-01-01
- 如果我为无符号变量分配负值会发生什么? 2022-01-01
