Re: Reference to void

Greg Herlihy wrote:

  > Such uniformity is misleading - because it creates the false
  > impression that name of a reference is analogous to the name of
  > pointer. When the reality is the names are used in opposite ways:
  >
  > For example:
  >
  > int * const p;
  >
  > "p" names the const pointer object and not the object that it may be
  > pointing to (and which is not named in this declaration). With
  > reference declarations, the situation is just the opposite:
  >
  > int& ref = i;
  >
  > "ref" names the object being referenced ("a reference may be thought
  > of as the name of an object") and the there is no, other referencing
  > object. So ref is not a "reference to an int" as much as ref is "the
  > int being refererced" in this expression.

Following your logic, and given:

     struct B {};
     struct D : B {};

     void f()
     {
        D d;
        B& r = d;
     }

r were to be called "a reference to D", or, better still, a "D
reference". Consequently, given only

     void g(B& b);

the parameter of g() would be of type "B or something derived from B, I
cannot tell for sure, reference".

--
Gerhard Menzl

Non-spammers may respond to my email address, which is composed of my
full name, separated by a dot, followed by at, followed by "fwz",
followed by a dot, followed by "aero".

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]