Question

Compare generic integration functions:

template <class F> double integrate(F integrand);

with

template <class F> double integrate(F& integrand);

or

template <class F> double integrate(const F& integrand);

What are the pros and cons of each? STL uses the first approach (pass by value), does it mean it’s the most universal one?

Answer 1

Function objects usually should be small so I don’t think that passing them by value will suffer from performance noticably (compare it to the work the function does in its body). If you pass by value, you can also gain from code analysis, because a by value parameter is local to the function and the optimizer may tell when and when not a load from a data member of the functor can be omitted.

If the functor is stateless, passing it as argument implies no cost at all – the padding byte that the functor takes doesn’t have to have any particular value (in the Itanium Abi used by GCC at least). When using references, you always have to pass an address.

The last one (const T&) has the drawback that in C++03 that doesn’t work for raw functions, because in C++03 the program is ill-formed if you try to apply const to a function type (and is an SFINAE case). More recent implementations instead ignore const when applied on function types.

The second one (T&) has the obvious drawback that you cannot pass temporary functors.

Long story short, I would generally pass them by value, unless I see a clear benefit in concrete cases.