Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 1046667
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 16, 20262026-05-16T16:10:56+00:00 2026-05-16T16:10:56+00:00

Common Situations: Passing std::string to a function foo(std::string*) or foo(std::string&); Passing tr1::shared_ptr to a

  • 0

Common Situations:

  1. Passing std::string to a function foo(std::string*) or foo(std::string&);
  2. Passing tr1::shared_ptr to a function foo(tr1::shared_ptr* ptr) or foo(tr1::shared_ptr& ptr);

In general, what is a good practice. I always get confused. At first, passing everything as references seems consistent, however it is not possible to pass in Literals as references or NULLs as references.

Similarly, having everything as pointers seems good, but having then I have to worry that pointers might be pointing to NULL and check for those conditions in the beginning of that function.

Do you think the following snippet is good?

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <map>
#include <string>
#include <tr1/memory>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
using namespace std::tr1;

int main(){
        map<string, shared_ptr<vector<string> > > adjacencyMap;
        vector<string>* myFriends = new vector<string>();
        myFriends->push_back(string("a"));
        myFriends->push_back(string("v"));
        myFriends->push_back(string("g"));
        adjacencyMap["s"] = shared_ptr<vector<string> >(myFriends);
        return 0;
}

Thanks
Ajay

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-16T16:10:57+00:00Added an answer on May 16, 2026 at 4:10 pm

    References are easier to get right.

    Is your problem with literals that you aren’t using const references? You can’t bind a temporary (produced by a literal) to a non-const reference, because it makes no sense to change one. You can bind one to a const reference.

    In particular, when passing an argument to a function, and the function isn’t going to change it, and it isn’t a built-in type, pass by const reference. It works much the same as pass by value, except it doesn’t require a copy constructor call.

    Pointers are useful in that they have a guaranteed invalid value you can test for. Sometimes this is irrelevant, and sometimes it’s very important. Of course, you can’t generally pass a literal by pointer, unless (in case of a string literal) it already is.

    Some coding standards say that nothing should ever be passed by non-const reference, since it provides no indication at the point of call that the argument might be changed by the function. In that case, you will be required to pass by pointer. I don’t favor this, particularly as programming tools make it easier and easier to get the function signature, so you can see if a function might change an argument. However, when working in a group or for an enterprise, style consistency is more important than any individual style element.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

A common practice to avoid race conditions (in multi-threaded apps) when triggering events is
A common piece of code I use for simple string splitting looks like this:
I want to avoid the situations when my developers do not share the common
Common situation: I have a client on my server who may update some of
Common scenario: I have a library that uses other libraries. For example, a math
Common problem I'm sure, but I can't figure it out. In my AndroidManifest.xml and
A common problem is that for validation you need to run the same code
The common Superclass of Rectangle and Circle is Shape. If I initialize some shapes,
A common issue I have is getting confused what $(this) is referring to. I
A common question that comes up from time to time in the world of

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.