C ++参考中的&符在语义上的准确位置是什么 [英] What's the semantically accurate position for the ampersand in C++ references

问题描述

众所周知，声明指针的语义准确方式是

It's pretty common knowledge that the semantically accurate way to declare pointers is

int *x;

代替

int* x;

这是因为C将 * x 视为int，而不是将 x 视为int指针.

This is because C sees *x as an int, not x as an int pointer.

这很容易证明

int* a, b;

其中 a 是一个int指针，而 b 是一个int.

where a is an int pointer, while b is an int.

stackoverflow.com上至少有5个重复的问题，这些问题针对指针进行了讨论.但是引用呢?

There are at least 5 duplicate questions on stackoverflow.com that discuss this issue for pointers. But what about references?

推荐答案

在研究此问题时，我已经找到了答案:

While researching for this question, I already found the answer:

& 必须像 * 一样编写.

该演示代码类似于指针演示代码:

The demonstration code is similar to the pointer demonstration code:

int main() {
    int a = 0;
    int b = 1;

    int& ar = a, br = b;

    br = 2;

    return b;
}

这将返回1，这意味着 ar 是一个int引用，而 br 只是一个整数.

This returns 1, which means that ar is an int reference, while br is just an integer.

这篇关于C ++参考中的&符在语义上的准确位置是什么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IT屋！