template <typename T>
void f(T t)
{}
int x = 1;
const int & rx = x;
const int * px = &x;
f(rx); // t is int
f(px); // t is const int *, instead of int *, WHY???
I'm confused now. According to Effective Modern c++,
It’s important to recognize that const is ignored only for by-value parameters. As we’ve seen, for parameters that are references-to- or pointers-to-const, the constness of expr is preserved during type deduction.
I think it means
template <typename T>
void f(T * t)
{}
f(px); // t is const int *
template <typename T>
void f(T & t)
{}
f(cx); // t is const int &
template <typename T>
void f(T t)
{}
f(value); // const or volatile of value will be ignored when the type of the parameter t is deduced
So I think when f(px)
above, t
should be int *
, but in fact it is const int *
.
Why the const
of reference is ignored but the const
of pointer isn't?
Or, why isn't rx
const int &
?
A reference is an alias for an already existing variable. Once a reference is initialized to a variable, it cannot be changed to refer to another variable. Hence, a reference is similar to a const pointer.
For instance, const references allow you to specify that the data referred to won't be changed; this means that you can use const references as a simple and immediate way of improving performance for any function that currently takes objects by value without having to worry that your function might modify the data.
We can create a pointer to a constant in C, which means that the pointer would point to a constant variable (created using const). We can also create a constant pointer to a constant in C, which means that neither the value of the pointer nor the value of the variable pointed to by the pointer would change.
Yes, you should use const whenever possible. It makes a contract that your code will not change something. Remember, a non-const variable can be passed in to a function that accepts a const parameter.
So I think when
f(px)
above,px
should beint *
, but in fact it isconst int *
.
The point is the type of parameter, behaviors change for passed-by-value and passed-by-reference/pointer.
When passed-by-value, the constness of the argument itself is ignored. For a pointer parameter, the constness of pointer is ignored (const pointer -> pointer), but the constness of pointee is still preserved (pointer to const -> pointer to const).
It does make sense because when pass a pointer, the pointer itself is copied, but the pointee is the same, they're both pointing to the same thing, so constness of pointee is preserved; from the point of callers, they won't want the object to be modified, they might use it later. While pass a reference (reference doesn't matter in fact here), you'll get a brand new value copied, which has nothing to do with the original one, then constness is ignored.
As the following explanations in the book, when const pointer to const (a const char* const
) passed,
template<typename T>
void f(T param); // param is still passed by value
const char* const ptr = // ptr is const pointer to const object
"Fun with pointers";
f(ptr); // pass arg of type const char * const
The type deduced for param
will be const char*
.
Only top-level const/volatile qualifiers are ignored. All others are inherent qualities of your type. In other words, you're copying a pointer - it means the function operates on a copy and any modifications to it (like assigning another variable's address) do not modify the original pointer. But if you pass a pointer to const int, having the function modify the integer is very much counter-intuitive.
template <typename T>
void f(T t)
{
t = &another_variable; // ok
}
f(px);
and
void f(T t)
{
*t = 42; // not ok!
}
f(px); // secretly modifying `x` through a pointer to const...
Reference: this answer for pointer to const vs. const pointer differences
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With