In the code below, function-pointer and what i considered as "function-reference" seems to have identical semantics:
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
void func(int a) {
cout << "Hello" << a << '\n';
}
void func2(int a) {
cout << "Hi" << a << '\n';
}
int main() {
void (& f_ref)(int) = func;
void (* f_ptr)(int) = func;
// what i expected to be, and is, correct:
f_ref(1);
(*f_ptr)(2);
// what i expected to be, and is not, wrong:
(*f_ref)(4); // i even added more stars here like (****f_ref)(4)
f_ptr(3); // everything just works!
// all 4 statements above works just fine
// the only difference i found, as one would expect:
// f_ref = func2; // ERROR: read-only reference
f_ptr = func2; // works fine!
f_ptr(5);
return 0;
}
I used gcc version 4.7.2 in Fedora/Linux
UPDATE
My questions are:
f_ptr = &func;
works? Since func should be decayed into a pointer?f_ptr = &&func;
doesn't work (implicit conversion from void *
)Functions and function references (i.e. id-expressions of those types) decay into function pointers almost immediately, so the expressions func
and f_ref
actually become function pointers in your case. You can also call (***func)(5)
and (******f_ref)(6)
if you like.
It may be preferable to use function references in cases where you want the &
-operator to work as though it had been applied to the function itself, e.g. &func
is the same as &f_ref
, but &f_ptr
is something else.