what is the diff between pointer and reference

[man]

can any one please tell me what is the diff between pointer and
reference.....a nd which one is better to use ....and why???????

[Neelesh Bodas]

man wrote:

can any one please tell me what is the diff between pointer and
reference.....a nd which one is better to use ....and why???????

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/references.html

[Oliver Block]

Hi,

a reference is like an alias. A different name for the same thing (i.e.
object or function). A Pointer points to the physical address of a
variable/object.

bye,

Oliver

[ryadav]

Adding to Oliver post, refferences should always be initialised,
pointer need not be.

they again have many adavantages and disadvantages.. .more given in book

Oliver Block wrote:

Hi,

a reference is like an alias. A different name for the same thing (i.e.
object or function). A Pointer points to the physical address of a
variable/object.

bye,

Oliver

[Sandeep]

ryadav wrote:

Adding to Oliver post, refferences should always be initialised,
pointer need not be.
This is because a reference is an alias( as already mentioned ). So
this is not a different point that you are putting down.

they again have many adavantages and disadvantages.. .more given in book

Which book ? You are not initializing a _reference_ here :-)

[Neil Cerutti]

On 2005-11-16, man <ma***********@ gmail.com> wrote:

can any one please tell me what is the diff between pointer and
reference.....a nd which one is better to use ....and why???????

When choosing a type to refer to an object:

Use a reference when you have to, like in copy constructors.
Use a reference when the referenced object will always exist.
Use a reference when the reference will not be changed to refer
to a different object.

Otherwise, use a pointer.

Apologies to Steve Meyers. See _More Effective C++_ for details.

--
Neil Cerutti

[Greg Comeau]

In article <11************ **********@f14g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>,
Sandeep <sa************ @gmail.com> wrote:

ryadav wrote:

Adding to Oliver post, refferences should always be initialised,
pointer need not be.

This is because a reference is an alias( as already mentioned ). So
this is not a different point that you are putting down.

Actually, it is a big difference. The concept of a reference
being an alias did not have to mean that it had to be initialized,
however, it was determined that for C++ that having it that way
was a good idea. Also, there are other ways in C++ to establish
aliases, and they do not have such a syntactic demand, perhaps
unfortunately.
--
Greg Comeau / Celebrating 20 years of Comeauity!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Sandeep]

Greg Comeau wrote:

In article <11************ **********@f14g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>,
Sandeep <sa************ @gmail.com> wrote:

ryadav wrote:

Adding to Oliver post, refferences should always be initialised,
pointer need not be.

This is because a reference is an alias( as already mentioned ). So
this is not a different point that you are putting down.

Actually, it is a big difference. The concept of a reference
being an alias did not have to mean that it had to be initialized,
however, it was determined that for C++ that having it that way
was a good idea. Also, there are other ways in C++ to establish
aliases, and they do not have such a syntactic demand, perhaps
unfortunately.

If you see carefully I am reponding to the statement saying that apart
from being an alias, an _additional_ difference is that it needs to be
initialized. And while doing this I am giving the reason why it needs
to be initialized.
I agree to what you say about there being other ways to establish (
initialize :-) ) a reference.

When you say "The concept of a reference being an alias did not have
to mean that it had to be initialized", I guess we are trying to say
the same things. Apologies if I was not clear.

[Al]

Why do you often use constant references? What is the point of doing
that?
I heard of being faster because of not tranfering and copying the
object when called as argument... more details?
ex: T(const T& r): a(r.a), b(r.b) {} instead of T(T r): a(r.a), b(r.b)
{}

or many other cases
why is it so important to do it?

[deane_gavin]

Al wrote:

Why do you often use constant references? What is the point of doing
that?
I heard of being faster because of not tranfering and copying the
object when called as argument... more details?
ex: T(const T& r): a(r.a), b(r.b) {} instead of T(T r): a(r.a), b(r.b)
{}

or many other cases
why is it so important to do it?

Well you've got it really. The difference between your two examples
above is that the first does not need to make a copy whereas the second
does. If copying is non-trivial and you do not *need* a copy then why
waste time making one? Using a reference does not make the code any
harder to read - the idiom is extremely widespread and recognisable.

So that's the advantage of a reference. Why use a const reference?
Firstly, the compiler will prevent you from introducing bugs where you
try to modify the object[*] and secondly it allows you to pass const
objects and temporaries.

Gavin Deane
[*] If you need to be able to modify the object then you can't use a
const reference. If you need to modify a copy of the object but leave
the original untouched then you can't use a reference at all - you need
a copy. But if you don't need to modify the object at all, using a
const reference gets the compiler helping you achieve that. The
compiler is, after all, your friend.