C++ – Should I prefer pointers or references in member data

cclass-membersreference

This is a simplified example to illustrate the question:

class A {};

class B
{
    B(A& a) : a(a) {}
    A& a;
};

class C
{
    C() : b(a) {} 
    A a;
    B b; 
};

So B is responsible for updating a part of C. I ran the code through lint and it whinged about the reference member: lint#1725.
This talks about taking care over default copy and assignments which is fair enough, but default copy and assignment is also bad with pointers, so there's little advantage there.

I always try to use references where I can since naked pointers introduce uncertaintly about who is responsible for deleting that pointer. I prefer to embed objects by value but if I need a pointer, I use auto_ptr in the member data of the class that owns the pointer, and pass the object around as a reference.

I would generally only use a pointer in member data when the pointer could be null or could change. Are there any other reasons to prefer pointers over references for data members?

Is it true to say that an object containing a reference should not be assignable, since a reference should not be changed once initialised?

Best Answer

My own rule of thumb :

Use a reference member when you want the life of your object to be dependent on the life of other objects : it's an explicit way to say that you don't allow the object to be alive without a valid instance of another class - because of no assignment and the obligation to get the references initialization via the constructor. It's a good way to design your class without assuming anything about it's instance being member or not of another class. You only assume that their lives are directly linked to other instances. It allows you to change later how you use your class instance (with new, as a local instance, as a class member, generated by a memory pool in a manager, etc.)
Use pointer in other cases : When you want the member to be changed later, use a pointer or a const pointer to be sure to only read the pointed instance. If that type is supposed to be copyable, you cannot use references anyway. Sometimes you also need to initialize the member after a special function call ( init() for example) and then you simply have no choice but to use a pointer. BUT : use asserts in all your member function to quickly detect wrong pointer state!
In cases where you want the object lifetime to be dependent on an external object's lifetime, and you also need that type to be copyable, then use pointer members but reference argument in constructor That way you are indicating on construction that the lifetime of this object depends on the argument's lifetime BUT the implementation use pointers to still be copyable. As long as these members are only changed by copy, and your type don't have a default constructor, the type should fullfil both goals.

Related Solutions

C++ – a smart pointer and when should I use one

UPDATE

This answer is rather old, and so describes what was 'good' at the time, which was smart pointers provided by the Boost library. Since C++11, the standard library has provided sufficient smart pointers types, and so you should favour the use of std::unique_ptr, std::shared_ptr and std::weak_ptr.

There was also std::auto_ptr. It was very much like a scoped pointer, except that it also had the "special" dangerous ability to be copied — which also unexpectedly transfers ownership.
It was deprecated in C++11 and removed in C++17, so you shouldn't use it.

std::auto_ptr<MyObject> p1 (new MyObject());
std::auto_ptr<MyObject> p2 = p1; // Copy and transfer ownership. 
                                 // p1 gets set to empty!
p2->DoSomething(); // Works.
p1->DoSomething(); // Oh oh. Hopefully raises some NULL pointer exception.

OLD ANSWER

A smart pointer is a class that wraps a 'raw' (or 'bare') C++ pointer, to manage the lifetime of the object being pointed to. There is no single smart pointer type, but all of them try to abstract a raw pointer in a practical way.

Smart pointers should be preferred over raw pointers. If you feel you need to use pointers (first consider if you really do), you would normally want to use a smart pointer as this can alleviate many of the problems with raw pointers, mainly forgetting to delete the object and leaking memory.

With raw pointers, the programmer has to explicitly destroy the object when it is no longer useful.

// Need to create the object to achieve some goal
MyObject* ptr = new MyObject(); 
ptr->DoSomething(); // Use the object in some way
delete ptr; // Destroy the object. Done with it.
// Wait, what if DoSomething() raises an exception...?

A smart pointer by comparison defines a policy as to when the object is destroyed. You still have to create the object, but you no longer have to worry about destroying it.

SomeSmartPtr<MyObject> ptr(new MyObject());
ptr->DoSomething(); // Use the object in some way.

// Destruction of the object happens, depending 
// on the policy the smart pointer class uses.

// Destruction would happen even if DoSomething() 
// raises an exception

The simplest policy in use involves the scope of the smart pointer wrapper object, such as implemented by boost::scoped_ptr or std::unique_ptr.

void f()
{
    {
       std::unique_ptr<MyObject> ptr(new MyObject());
       ptr->DoSomethingUseful();
    } // ptr goes out of scope -- 
      // the MyObject is automatically destroyed.

    // ptr->Oops(); // Compile error: "ptr" not defined
                    // since it is no longer in scope.
}

Note that std::unique_ptr instances cannot be copied. This prevents the pointer from being deleted multiple times (incorrectly). You can, however, pass references to it around to other functions you call.

std::unique_ptrs are useful when you want to tie the lifetime of the object to a particular block of code, or if you embedded it as member data inside another object, the lifetime of that other object. The object exists until the containing block of code is exited, or until the containing object is itself destroyed.

A more complex smart pointer policy involves reference counting the pointer. This does allow the pointer to be copied. When the last "reference" to the object is destroyed, the object is deleted. This policy is implemented by boost::shared_ptr and std::shared_ptr.

void f()
{
    typedef std::shared_ptr<MyObject> MyObjectPtr; // nice short alias
    MyObjectPtr p1; // Empty

    {
        MyObjectPtr p2(new MyObject());
        // There is now one "reference" to the created object
        p1 = p2; // Copy the pointer.
        // There are now two references to the object.
    } // p2 is destroyed, leaving one reference to the object.
} // p1 is destroyed, leaving a reference count of zero. 
  // The object is deleted.

Reference counted pointers are very useful when the lifetime of your object is much more complicated, and is not tied directly to a particular section of code or to another object.

There is one drawback to reference counted pointers — the possibility of creating a dangling reference:

// Create the smart pointer on the heap
MyObjectPtr* pp = new MyObjectPtr(new MyObject())
// Hmm, we forgot to destroy the smart pointer,
// because of that, the object is never destroyed!

Another possibility is creating circular references:

struct Owner {
   std::shared_ptr<Owner> other;
};

std::shared_ptr<Owner> p1 (new Owner());
std::shared_ptr<Owner> p2 (new Owner());
p1->other = p2; // p1 references p2
p2->other = p1; // p2 references p1

// Oops, the reference count of of p1 and p2 never goes to zero!
// The objects are never destroyed!

To work around this problem, both Boost and C++11 have defined a weak_ptr to define a weak (uncounted) reference to a shared_ptr.

C++ – When should static_cast, dynamic_cast, const_cast and reinterpret_cast be used

static_cast is the first cast you should attempt to use. It does things like implicit conversions between types (such as int to float, or pointer to void*), and it can also call explicit conversion functions (or implicit ones). In many cases, explicitly stating static_cast isn't necessary, but it's important to note that the T(something) syntax is equivalent to (T)something and should be avoided (more on that later). A T(something, something_else) is safe, however, and guaranteed to call the constructor.

static_cast can also cast through inheritance hierarchies. It is unnecessary when casting upwards (towards a base class), but when casting downwards it can be used as long as it doesn't cast through virtual inheritance. It does not do checking, however, and it is undefined behavior to static_cast down a hierarchy to a type that isn't actually the type of the object.

const_cast can be used to remove or add const to a variable; no other C++ cast is capable of removing it (not even reinterpret_cast). It is important to note that modifying a formerly const value is only undefined if the original variable is const; if you use it to take the const off a reference to something that wasn't declared with const, it is safe. This can be useful when overloading member functions based on const, for instance. It can also be used to add const to an object, such as to call a member function overload.

const_cast also works similarly on volatile, though that's less common.

dynamic_cast is exclusively used for handling polymorphism. You can cast a pointer or reference to any polymorphic type to any other class type (a polymorphic type has at least one virtual function, declared or inherited). You can use it for more than just casting downwards – you can cast sideways or even up another chain. The dynamic_cast will seek out the desired object and return it if possible. If it can't, it will return nullptr in the case of a pointer, or throw std::bad_cast in the case of a reference.

dynamic_cast has some limitations, though. It doesn't work if there are multiple objects of the same type in the inheritance hierarchy (the so-called 'dreaded diamond') and you aren't using virtual inheritance. It also can only go through public inheritance - it will always fail to travel through protected or private inheritance. This is rarely an issue, however, as such forms of inheritance are rare.

reinterpret_cast is the most dangerous cast, and should be used very sparingly. It turns one type directly into another — such as casting the value from one pointer to another, or storing a pointer in an int, or all sorts of other nasty things. Largely, the only guarantee you get with reinterpret_cast is that normally if you cast the result back to the original type, you will get the exact same value (but not if the intermediate type is smaller than the original type). There are a number of conversions that reinterpret_cast cannot do, too. It's used primarily for particularly weird conversions and bit manipulations, like turning a raw data stream into actual data, or storing data in the low bits of a pointer to aligned data.

C-style cast and function-style cast are casts using (type)object or type(object), respectively, and are functionally equivalent. They are defined as the first of the following which succeeds:

const_cast
static_cast (though ignoring access restrictions)
static_cast (see above), then const_cast
reinterpret_cast
reinterpret_cast, then const_cast

It can therefore be used as a replacement for other casts in some instances, but can be extremely dangerous because of the ability to devolve into a reinterpret_cast, and the latter should be preferred when explicit casting is needed, unless you are sure static_cast will succeed or reinterpret_cast will fail. Even then, consider the longer, more explicit option.

C-style casts also ignore access control when performing a static_cast, which means that they have the ability to perform an operation that no other cast can. This is mostly a kludge, though, and in my mind is just another reason to avoid C-style casts.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

C++ – a smart pointer and when should I use one

C++ – When should static_cast, dynamic_cast, const_cast and reinterpret_cast be used

Related Topic