C++ 引用中 & 符号在语义上的准确位置是什么

What#39;s the semantically accurate position for the ampersand in C++ references(C++ 引用中 符号在语义上的准确位置是什么)

问题描述

众所周知，声明指针的语义准确方法是

It's pretty common knowledge that the semantically accurate way to declare pointers is

int *x;

代替

int* x;

这是因为 C 将 *x 视为 int，而不是将 x 视为 int 指针.

This is because C sees *x as an int, not x as an int pointer.

这很容易证明

int* a, b;

其中a 是一个int 指针，而b 是一个int.

where a is an int pointer, while b is an int.

在 Stack Overflow 上至少有 5 个重复的问题讨论了这个问题的指针.但是引用呢?

There are at least 5 duplicate questions on Stack Overflow that discuss this issue for pointers. But what about references?

推荐答案

在研究这个问题时，我已经找到了答案:

While researching for this question, I already found the answer:

& 需要像 * 一样编写.

The & needs to be written just like the *.

演示代码类似于指针演示代码:

The demonstration code is similar to the pointer demonstration code:

int main() {
    int a = 0;
    int b = 1;

    int& ar = a, br = b;

    br = 2;

    return b;
}

这返回 1，这意味着 ar 是一个 int 引用，而 br 只是一个整数.

This returns 1, which means that ar is an int reference, while br is just an integer.

这篇关于C++ 引用中 & 符号在语义上的准确位置是什么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！