Passing an array by reference
How does passing a statically allocated array by reference work?
void foo(int (&myArray)[100])
{
}
int main()
{
int a[100];
foo(a);
}
Does (&myArray)[100]
have any meaning or its just a syntax to pass any array by reference?
I don't understand separate parenthesis followed by big brackets here. Thanks.
c++ arrays
add a comment |
How does passing a statically allocated array by reference work?
void foo(int (&myArray)[100])
{
}
int main()
{
int a[100];
foo(a);
}
Does (&myArray)[100]
have any meaning or its just a syntax to pass any array by reference?
I don't understand separate parenthesis followed by big brackets here. Thanks.
c++ arrays
Is there any Rvalue to Lvalue relation with the function parameters?
– John DB
Apr 20 '11 at 0:16
possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– AnT
Apr 20 '11 at 0:25
Possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– anatolyg
Jul 8 '17 at 23:07
add a comment |
How does passing a statically allocated array by reference work?
void foo(int (&myArray)[100])
{
}
int main()
{
int a[100];
foo(a);
}
Does (&myArray)[100]
have any meaning or its just a syntax to pass any array by reference?
I don't understand separate parenthesis followed by big brackets here. Thanks.
c++ arrays
How does passing a statically allocated array by reference work?
void foo(int (&myArray)[100])
{
}
int main()
{
int a[100];
foo(a);
}
Does (&myArray)[100]
have any meaning or its just a syntax to pass any array by reference?
I don't understand separate parenthesis followed by big brackets here. Thanks.
c++ arrays
c++ arrays
edited Nov 8 '17 at 20:40
Sean Bone
1,11621837
1,11621837
asked Apr 20 '11 at 0:05
John DBJohn DB
706263
706263
Is there any Rvalue to Lvalue relation with the function parameters?
– John DB
Apr 20 '11 at 0:16
possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– AnT
Apr 20 '11 at 0:25
Possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– anatolyg
Jul 8 '17 at 23:07
add a comment |
Is there any Rvalue to Lvalue relation with the function parameters?
– John DB
Apr 20 '11 at 0:16
possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– AnT
Apr 20 '11 at 0:25
Possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– anatolyg
Jul 8 '17 at 23:07
Is there any Rvalue to Lvalue relation with the function parameters?
– John DB
Apr 20 '11 at 0:16
Is there any Rvalue to Lvalue relation with the function parameters?
– John DB
Apr 20 '11 at 0:16
possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– AnT
Apr 20 '11 at 0:25
possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– AnT
Apr 20 '11 at 0:25
Possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– anatolyg
Jul 8 '17 at 23:07
Possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– anatolyg
Jul 8 '17 at 23:07
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
It's a syntax for array references - you need to use (&array)
to clarify to the compiler that you want a reference to an array, rather than the (invalid) array of references int & array[100];
.
EDIT: Some clarification.
void foo(int * x);
void foo(int x[100]);
void foo(int x);
These three are different ways of declaring the same function. They're all treated as taking an int *
parameter, you can pass any size array to them.
void foo(int (&x)[100]);
This only accepts arrays of 100 integers. You can safely use sizeof
on x
void foo(int & x[100]); // error
This is parsed as an "array of references" - which isn't legal.
Why can't we have an array of references e.g.int a, b, c; int arr[3] = {a, b, c};
?
– Vorac
Jan 7 '16 at 13:10
4
Aha, found out why.
– Vorac
Jan 8 '16 at 13:51
2
Could someone explain whyvoid foo(int & x[100]);
is parsed as "array of references" please? Is it because the "from-right-to-left" rule? If yes, it seems to be not consistent with howvoid foo(int (&x)[100]);
is parsed as "a reference to a array". Thanks in advance.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:52
2
It's not right to left, it's inside out, and binds tighter than &.
– philipxy
May 6 '17 at 3:10
add a comment |
It's just the required syntax:
void Func(int (&myArray)[100])
^ Pass array of 100 int
by reference the parameters name is myArray
;
void Func(int* myArray)
^ Pass an array. Array decays to a pointer. Thus you lose size information.
void Func(int (*myFunc)(double))
^ Pass a function pointer. The function returns an int
and takes a double
. The parameter name is myFunc
.
How do we pass a variable size array as a reference ?
– Shivam Arora
Jun 29 '17 at 8:07
@ShivamArora You templateize the function and make the size a template parameter.
– Martin York
Jun 29 '17 at 15:53
add a comment |
It is a syntax. In the function arguments int (&myArray)[100]
parenthesis that enclose the &myArray
are necessary. if you don't use them, you will be passing an array of references
and that is because the subscript operator
has higher precedence over the & operator
.
E.g. int &myArray[100] // array of references
So, by using type construction ()
you tell the compiler that you want a reference to an array of 100 integers.
E.g int (&myArray)[100] // reference of an array of 100 ints
"if you don't use them, you will be passing anarray of references
" - which of course, cannot exist, so you'd get a compile error. It's amusing to me that the operator precedence rules insist this must happen by default anyway.
– underscore_d
Aug 30 '16 at 15:27
Is there's any more tutorial about type construction () ?
– Iartist93
Dec 1 '16 at 19:32
Thanks, I needed an explanation that included the reason about operator precedence, which gives a sense to why it should be done this way.
– cram2208
Nov 7 '17 at 5:43
add a comment |
Arrays are default passed by pointers. You can try modifying an array inside a function call for better understanding.
2
Arrays can not be passed by value. If the function receives a pointer, an array decays to a pointer to its first element. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
– Ulrich Eckhardt
Jul 19 '15 at 8:50
@UlrichEckhardt I'm trying to say that "Arrays can not be passed by value" as you said before, they are default passed by reference
– Eduardo A. Fernández Díaz
Jul 24 '15 at 21:52
5
Array are neither passed by value nor reference. They are passed by pointers. If arrays are passed by reference by default, you will have no problem using sizeof on them. But that is not the case. Arrays decays to pointers when passed into a function.
– user3437460
May 27 '16 at 16:43
1
Arrays can be passed by reference OR by degrading to a pointer. For example, usingchar arr[1]; foo(char arr).
, arr degrades to a pointer; while usingchar arr[1]; foo(char (&arr)[1])
, arr is passed as a reference. It's notable that the former form is often regarded as ill-formed since the dimension is lost.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:14
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's a syntax for array references - you need to use (&array)
to clarify to the compiler that you want a reference to an array, rather than the (invalid) array of references int & array[100];
.
EDIT: Some clarification.
void foo(int * x);
void foo(int x[100]);
void foo(int x);
These three are different ways of declaring the same function. They're all treated as taking an int *
parameter, you can pass any size array to them.
void foo(int (&x)[100]);
This only accepts arrays of 100 integers. You can safely use sizeof
on x
void foo(int & x[100]); // error
This is parsed as an "array of references" - which isn't legal.
Why can't we have an array of references e.g.int a, b, c; int arr[3] = {a, b, c};
?
– Vorac
Jan 7 '16 at 13:10
4
Aha, found out why.
– Vorac
Jan 8 '16 at 13:51
2
Could someone explain whyvoid foo(int & x[100]);
is parsed as "array of references" please? Is it because the "from-right-to-left" rule? If yes, it seems to be not consistent with howvoid foo(int (&x)[100]);
is parsed as "a reference to a array". Thanks in advance.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:52
2
It's not right to left, it's inside out, and binds tighter than &.
– philipxy
May 6 '17 at 3:10
add a comment |
It's a syntax for array references - you need to use (&array)
to clarify to the compiler that you want a reference to an array, rather than the (invalid) array of references int & array[100];
.
EDIT: Some clarification.
void foo(int * x);
void foo(int x[100]);
void foo(int x);
These three are different ways of declaring the same function. They're all treated as taking an int *
parameter, you can pass any size array to them.
void foo(int (&x)[100]);
This only accepts arrays of 100 integers. You can safely use sizeof
on x
void foo(int & x[100]); // error
This is parsed as an "array of references" - which isn't legal.
Why can't we have an array of references e.g.int a, b, c; int arr[3] = {a, b, c};
?
– Vorac
Jan 7 '16 at 13:10
4
Aha, found out why.
– Vorac
Jan 8 '16 at 13:51
2
Could someone explain whyvoid foo(int & x[100]);
is parsed as "array of references" please? Is it because the "from-right-to-left" rule? If yes, it seems to be not consistent with howvoid foo(int (&x)[100]);
is parsed as "a reference to a array". Thanks in advance.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:52
2
It's not right to left, it's inside out, and binds tighter than &.
– philipxy
May 6 '17 at 3:10
add a comment |
It's a syntax for array references - you need to use (&array)
to clarify to the compiler that you want a reference to an array, rather than the (invalid) array of references int & array[100];
.
EDIT: Some clarification.
void foo(int * x);
void foo(int x[100]);
void foo(int x);
These three are different ways of declaring the same function. They're all treated as taking an int *
parameter, you can pass any size array to them.
void foo(int (&x)[100]);
This only accepts arrays of 100 integers. You can safely use sizeof
on x
void foo(int & x[100]); // error
This is parsed as an "array of references" - which isn't legal.
It's a syntax for array references - you need to use (&array)
to clarify to the compiler that you want a reference to an array, rather than the (invalid) array of references int & array[100];
.
EDIT: Some clarification.
void foo(int * x);
void foo(int x[100]);
void foo(int x);
These three are different ways of declaring the same function. They're all treated as taking an int *
parameter, you can pass any size array to them.
void foo(int (&x)[100]);
This only accepts arrays of 100 integers. You can safely use sizeof
on x
void foo(int & x[100]); // error
This is parsed as an "array of references" - which isn't legal.
edited Apr 20 '11 at 0:21
answered Apr 20 '11 at 0:07
ErikErik
67.1k9168174
67.1k9168174
Why can't we have an array of references e.g.int a, b, c; int arr[3] = {a, b, c};
?
– Vorac
Jan 7 '16 at 13:10
4
Aha, found out why.
– Vorac
Jan 8 '16 at 13:51
2
Could someone explain whyvoid foo(int & x[100]);
is parsed as "array of references" please? Is it because the "from-right-to-left" rule? If yes, it seems to be not consistent with howvoid foo(int (&x)[100]);
is parsed as "a reference to a array". Thanks in advance.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:52
2
It's not right to left, it's inside out, and binds tighter than &.
– philipxy
May 6 '17 at 3:10
add a comment |
Why can't we have an array of references e.g.int a, b, c; int arr[3] = {a, b, c};
?
– Vorac
Jan 7 '16 at 13:10
4
Aha, found out why.
– Vorac
Jan 8 '16 at 13:51
2
Could someone explain whyvoid foo(int & x[100]);
is parsed as "array of references" please? Is it because the "from-right-to-left" rule? If yes, it seems to be not consistent with howvoid foo(int (&x)[100]);
is parsed as "a reference to a array". Thanks in advance.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:52
2
It's not right to left, it's inside out, and binds tighter than &.
– philipxy
May 6 '17 at 3:10
Why can't we have an array of references e.g.
int a, b, c; int arr[3] = {a, b, c};
?– Vorac
Jan 7 '16 at 13:10
Why can't we have an array of references e.g.
int a, b, c; int arr[3] = {a, b, c};
?– Vorac
Jan 7 '16 at 13:10
4
4
Aha, found out why.
– Vorac
Jan 8 '16 at 13:51
Aha, found out why.
– Vorac
Jan 8 '16 at 13:51
2
2
Could someone explain why
void foo(int & x[100]);
is parsed as "array of references" please? Is it because the "from-right-to-left" rule? If yes, it seems to be not consistent with how void foo(int (&x)[100]);
is parsed as "a reference to a array". Thanks in advance.– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:52
Could someone explain why
void foo(int & x[100]);
is parsed as "array of references" please? Is it because the "from-right-to-left" rule? If yes, it seems to be not consistent with how void foo(int (&x)[100]);
is parsed as "a reference to a array". Thanks in advance.– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:52
2
2
It's not right to left, it's inside out, and binds tighter than &.
– philipxy
May 6 '17 at 3:10
It's not right to left, it's inside out, and binds tighter than &.
– philipxy
May 6 '17 at 3:10
add a comment |
It's just the required syntax:
void Func(int (&myArray)[100])
^ Pass array of 100 int
by reference the parameters name is myArray
;
void Func(int* myArray)
^ Pass an array. Array decays to a pointer. Thus you lose size information.
void Func(int (*myFunc)(double))
^ Pass a function pointer. The function returns an int
and takes a double
. The parameter name is myFunc
.
How do we pass a variable size array as a reference ?
– Shivam Arora
Jun 29 '17 at 8:07
@ShivamArora You templateize the function and make the size a template parameter.
– Martin York
Jun 29 '17 at 15:53
add a comment |
It's just the required syntax:
void Func(int (&myArray)[100])
^ Pass array of 100 int
by reference the parameters name is myArray
;
void Func(int* myArray)
^ Pass an array. Array decays to a pointer. Thus you lose size information.
void Func(int (*myFunc)(double))
^ Pass a function pointer. The function returns an int
and takes a double
. The parameter name is myFunc
.
How do we pass a variable size array as a reference ?
– Shivam Arora
Jun 29 '17 at 8:07
@ShivamArora You templateize the function and make the size a template parameter.
– Martin York
Jun 29 '17 at 15:53
add a comment |
It's just the required syntax:
void Func(int (&myArray)[100])
^ Pass array of 100 int
by reference the parameters name is myArray
;
void Func(int* myArray)
^ Pass an array. Array decays to a pointer. Thus you lose size information.
void Func(int (*myFunc)(double))
^ Pass a function pointer. The function returns an int
and takes a double
. The parameter name is myFunc
.
It's just the required syntax:
void Func(int (&myArray)[100])
^ Pass array of 100 int
by reference the parameters name is myArray
;
void Func(int* myArray)
^ Pass an array. Array decays to a pointer. Thus you lose size information.
void Func(int (*myFunc)(double))
^ Pass a function pointer. The function returns an int
and takes a double
. The parameter name is myFunc
.
edited Mar 16 '16 at 18:07
Nayuki
14.2k53765
14.2k53765
answered Apr 20 '11 at 0:08
Martin YorkMartin York
197k66266482
197k66266482
How do we pass a variable size array as a reference ?
– Shivam Arora
Jun 29 '17 at 8:07
@ShivamArora You templateize the function and make the size a template parameter.
– Martin York
Jun 29 '17 at 15:53
add a comment |
How do we pass a variable size array as a reference ?
– Shivam Arora
Jun 29 '17 at 8:07
@ShivamArora You templateize the function and make the size a template parameter.
– Martin York
Jun 29 '17 at 15:53
How do we pass a variable size array as a reference ?
– Shivam Arora
Jun 29 '17 at 8:07
How do we pass a variable size array as a reference ?
– Shivam Arora
Jun 29 '17 at 8:07
@ShivamArora You templateize the function and make the size a template parameter.
– Martin York
Jun 29 '17 at 15:53
@ShivamArora You templateize the function and make the size a template parameter.
– Martin York
Jun 29 '17 at 15:53
add a comment |
It is a syntax. In the function arguments int (&myArray)[100]
parenthesis that enclose the &myArray
are necessary. if you don't use them, you will be passing an array of references
and that is because the subscript operator
has higher precedence over the & operator
.
E.g. int &myArray[100] // array of references
So, by using type construction ()
you tell the compiler that you want a reference to an array of 100 integers.
E.g int (&myArray)[100] // reference of an array of 100 ints
"if you don't use them, you will be passing anarray of references
" - which of course, cannot exist, so you'd get a compile error. It's amusing to me that the operator precedence rules insist this must happen by default anyway.
– underscore_d
Aug 30 '16 at 15:27
Is there's any more tutorial about type construction () ?
– Iartist93
Dec 1 '16 at 19:32
Thanks, I needed an explanation that included the reason about operator precedence, which gives a sense to why it should be done this way.
– cram2208
Nov 7 '17 at 5:43
add a comment |
It is a syntax. In the function arguments int (&myArray)[100]
parenthesis that enclose the &myArray
are necessary. if you don't use them, you will be passing an array of references
and that is because the subscript operator
has higher precedence over the & operator
.
E.g. int &myArray[100] // array of references
So, by using type construction ()
you tell the compiler that you want a reference to an array of 100 integers.
E.g int (&myArray)[100] // reference of an array of 100 ints
"if you don't use them, you will be passing anarray of references
" - which of course, cannot exist, so you'd get a compile error. It's amusing to me that the operator precedence rules insist this must happen by default anyway.
– underscore_d
Aug 30 '16 at 15:27
Is there's any more tutorial about type construction () ?
– Iartist93
Dec 1 '16 at 19:32
Thanks, I needed an explanation that included the reason about operator precedence, which gives a sense to why it should be done this way.
– cram2208
Nov 7 '17 at 5:43
add a comment |
It is a syntax. In the function arguments int (&myArray)[100]
parenthesis that enclose the &myArray
are necessary. if you don't use them, you will be passing an array of references
and that is because the subscript operator
has higher precedence over the & operator
.
E.g. int &myArray[100] // array of references
So, by using type construction ()
you tell the compiler that you want a reference to an array of 100 integers.
E.g int (&myArray)[100] // reference of an array of 100 ints
It is a syntax. In the function arguments int (&myArray)[100]
parenthesis that enclose the &myArray
are necessary. if you don't use them, you will be passing an array of references
and that is because the subscript operator
has higher precedence over the & operator
.
E.g. int &myArray[100] // array of references
So, by using type construction ()
you tell the compiler that you want a reference to an array of 100 integers.
E.g int (&myArray)[100] // reference of an array of 100 ints
edited May 25 '15 at 9:17
BugShotGG
2,76643751
2,76643751
answered Apr 20 '11 at 1:06
cpxcpx
8,9691569127
8,9691569127
"if you don't use them, you will be passing anarray of references
" - which of course, cannot exist, so you'd get a compile error. It's amusing to me that the operator precedence rules insist this must happen by default anyway.
– underscore_d
Aug 30 '16 at 15:27
Is there's any more tutorial about type construction () ?
– Iartist93
Dec 1 '16 at 19:32
Thanks, I needed an explanation that included the reason about operator precedence, which gives a sense to why it should be done this way.
– cram2208
Nov 7 '17 at 5:43
add a comment |
"if you don't use them, you will be passing anarray of references
" - which of course, cannot exist, so you'd get a compile error. It's amusing to me that the operator precedence rules insist this must happen by default anyway.
– underscore_d
Aug 30 '16 at 15:27
Is there's any more tutorial about type construction () ?
– Iartist93
Dec 1 '16 at 19:32
Thanks, I needed an explanation that included the reason about operator precedence, which gives a sense to why it should be done this way.
– cram2208
Nov 7 '17 at 5:43
"if you don't use them, you will be passing an
array of references
" - which of course, cannot exist, so you'd get a compile error. It's amusing to me that the operator precedence rules insist this must happen by default anyway.– underscore_d
Aug 30 '16 at 15:27
"if you don't use them, you will be passing an
array of references
" - which of course, cannot exist, so you'd get a compile error. It's amusing to me that the operator precedence rules insist this must happen by default anyway.– underscore_d
Aug 30 '16 at 15:27
Is there's any more tutorial about type construction () ?
– Iartist93
Dec 1 '16 at 19:32
Is there's any more tutorial about type construction () ?
– Iartist93
Dec 1 '16 at 19:32
Thanks, I needed an explanation that included the reason about operator precedence, which gives a sense to why it should be done this way.
– cram2208
Nov 7 '17 at 5:43
Thanks, I needed an explanation that included the reason about operator precedence, which gives a sense to why it should be done this way.
– cram2208
Nov 7 '17 at 5:43
add a comment |
Arrays are default passed by pointers. You can try modifying an array inside a function call for better understanding.
2
Arrays can not be passed by value. If the function receives a pointer, an array decays to a pointer to its first element. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
– Ulrich Eckhardt
Jul 19 '15 at 8:50
@UlrichEckhardt I'm trying to say that "Arrays can not be passed by value" as you said before, they are default passed by reference
– Eduardo A. Fernández Díaz
Jul 24 '15 at 21:52
5
Array are neither passed by value nor reference. They are passed by pointers. If arrays are passed by reference by default, you will have no problem using sizeof on them. But that is not the case. Arrays decays to pointers when passed into a function.
– user3437460
May 27 '16 at 16:43
1
Arrays can be passed by reference OR by degrading to a pointer. For example, usingchar arr[1]; foo(char arr).
, arr degrades to a pointer; while usingchar arr[1]; foo(char (&arr)[1])
, arr is passed as a reference. It's notable that the former form is often regarded as ill-formed since the dimension is lost.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:14
add a comment |
Arrays are default passed by pointers. You can try modifying an array inside a function call for better understanding.
2
Arrays can not be passed by value. If the function receives a pointer, an array decays to a pointer to its first element. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
– Ulrich Eckhardt
Jul 19 '15 at 8:50
@UlrichEckhardt I'm trying to say that "Arrays can not be passed by value" as you said before, they are default passed by reference
– Eduardo A. Fernández Díaz
Jul 24 '15 at 21:52
5
Array are neither passed by value nor reference. They are passed by pointers. If arrays are passed by reference by default, you will have no problem using sizeof on them. But that is not the case. Arrays decays to pointers when passed into a function.
– user3437460
May 27 '16 at 16:43
1
Arrays can be passed by reference OR by degrading to a pointer. For example, usingchar arr[1]; foo(char arr).
, arr degrades to a pointer; while usingchar arr[1]; foo(char (&arr)[1])
, arr is passed as a reference. It's notable that the former form is often regarded as ill-formed since the dimension is lost.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:14
add a comment |
Arrays are default passed by pointers. You can try modifying an array inside a function call for better understanding.
Arrays are default passed by pointers. You can try modifying an array inside a function call for better understanding.
edited Sep 14 '17 at 18:59
answered Jul 1 '15 at 23:07
Eduardo A. Fernández DíazEduardo A. Fernández Díaz
13111
13111
2
Arrays can not be passed by value. If the function receives a pointer, an array decays to a pointer to its first element. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
– Ulrich Eckhardt
Jul 19 '15 at 8:50
@UlrichEckhardt I'm trying to say that "Arrays can not be passed by value" as you said before, they are default passed by reference
– Eduardo A. Fernández Díaz
Jul 24 '15 at 21:52
5
Array are neither passed by value nor reference. They are passed by pointers. If arrays are passed by reference by default, you will have no problem using sizeof on them. But that is not the case. Arrays decays to pointers when passed into a function.
– user3437460
May 27 '16 at 16:43
1
Arrays can be passed by reference OR by degrading to a pointer. For example, usingchar arr[1]; foo(char arr).
, arr degrades to a pointer; while usingchar arr[1]; foo(char (&arr)[1])
, arr is passed as a reference. It's notable that the former form is often regarded as ill-formed since the dimension is lost.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:14
add a comment |
2
Arrays can not be passed by value. If the function receives a pointer, an array decays to a pointer to its first element. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
– Ulrich Eckhardt
Jul 19 '15 at 8:50
@UlrichEckhardt I'm trying to say that "Arrays can not be passed by value" as you said before, they are default passed by reference
– Eduardo A. Fernández Díaz
Jul 24 '15 at 21:52
5
Array are neither passed by value nor reference. They are passed by pointers. If arrays are passed by reference by default, you will have no problem using sizeof on them. But that is not the case. Arrays decays to pointers when passed into a function.
– user3437460
May 27 '16 at 16:43
1
Arrays can be passed by reference OR by degrading to a pointer. For example, usingchar arr[1]; foo(char arr).
, arr degrades to a pointer; while usingchar arr[1]; foo(char (&arr)[1])
, arr is passed as a reference. It's notable that the former form is often regarded as ill-formed since the dimension is lost.
– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:14
2
2
Arrays can not be passed by value. If the function receives a pointer, an array decays to a pointer to its first element. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
– Ulrich Eckhardt
Jul 19 '15 at 8:50
Arrays can not be passed by value. If the function receives a pointer, an array decays to a pointer to its first element. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
– Ulrich Eckhardt
Jul 19 '15 at 8:50
@UlrichEckhardt I'm trying to say that "Arrays can not be passed by value" as you said before, they are default passed by reference
– Eduardo A. Fernández Díaz
Jul 24 '15 at 21:52
@UlrichEckhardt I'm trying to say that "Arrays can not be passed by value" as you said before, they are default passed by reference
– Eduardo A. Fernández Díaz
Jul 24 '15 at 21:52
5
5
Array are neither passed by value nor reference. They are passed by pointers. If arrays are passed by reference by default, you will have no problem using sizeof on them. But that is not the case. Arrays decays to pointers when passed into a function.
– user3437460
May 27 '16 at 16:43
Array are neither passed by value nor reference. They are passed by pointers. If arrays are passed by reference by default, you will have no problem using sizeof on them. But that is not the case. Arrays decays to pointers when passed into a function.
– user3437460
May 27 '16 at 16:43
1
1
Arrays can be passed by reference OR by degrading to a pointer. For example, using
char arr[1]; foo(char arr).
, arr degrades to a pointer; while using char arr[1]; foo(char (&arr)[1])
, arr is passed as a reference. It's notable that the former form is often regarded as ill-formed since the dimension is lost.– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:14
Arrays can be passed by reference OR by degrading to a pointer. For example, using
char arr[1]; foo(char arr).
, arr degrades to a pointer; while using char arr[1]; foo(char (&arr)[1])
, arr is passed as a reference. It's notable that the former form is often regarded as ill-formed since the dimension is lost.– zl9394
Feb 11 '17 at 0:14
add a comment |
Is there any Rvalue to Lvalue relation with the function parameters?
– John DB
Apr 20 '11 at 0:16
possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– AnT
Apr 20 '11 at 0:25
Possible duplicate of What is useful about a reference-to-array parameter?
– anatolyg
Jul 8 '17 at 23:07