问题描述

一个非常理论的问题...为什么常量引用的行为方式与常量指针不同，以便我可以实际更改它们指向的对象?它们真的看起来像是另一个简单的变量声明.我为什么要使用它们?这是我运行的一个简短示例，它编译并运行没有错误:

A pretty theoretical question...Why do constant references not behave the same way as constant pointers so that I can actually change the object they are pointing to? They really seem like another plain variable declaration. Why would I ever use them? This is a short example that I run which compiles and runs with no errors:

int main (){
    int i=0;
    int y=1;    
    int&const icr=i;
    icr=y;          // Can change the object it is pointing to so it's not like a const pointer...
    icr=99;         // Can assign another value but the value is not assigned to y...
    int x=9;
    icr=x;
    cout<<"icr: "<<icr<<", y:"<<y<<endl; 
}

推荐答案

最清晰的答案.是否X&const x" 有意义吗?

The clearest answer. Does "X& const x" make any sense?

不，这是胡说八道

要了解上述声明的含义，请从右到左阅读:x 是对 X 的 const 引用".但这是多余的——参考始终是 const，从某种意义上说，您永远无法重新安装引用使其指向不同的对象.绝不.有或没有常量.

To find out what the above declaration means, read it right-to-left: "x is a const reference to a X". But that is redundant — references are always const, in the sense that you can never reseat a reference to make it refer to a different object. Never. With or without the const.

换句话说，X&const x"在功能上等同于X&X".由于在 & 之后添加 const 并没有获得任何收益，因此您不应该添加它:它会混淆人们 - const 会产生一些人们认为 X 是 const，就好像你说过const X&x".

In other words, "X& const x" is functionally equivalent to "X& x". Since you’re gaining nothing by adding the const after the &, you shouldn’t add it: it will confuse people — the const will make some people think that the X is const, as if you had said "const X& x".

这篇关于什么是常数参考?(不是对常量的引用)的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持编程学习网！