An argument against (the liberal use of) references

From	Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	An argument against (the liberal use of) references
Date	2022-11-22 09:52 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<tli64v$1k4l$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

Recently I made a post about references, about how I think many C++
programmers think of them in the wrong way (ie. they think of them
as being effectively an alternative syntax for pointers, a "more
limited pointer syntax", or "a safer pointer syntax", when in fact
references shouldn't be semantically thought of as pointers at all,
but as aliases for the objects they are referring to). In that thread
some criticism was presented about the use of references, and arguments
for their use.

For the sake of fairness and balance, here's an argument *against*
(the liberal use of) references.

Most C++ programmers have been conditioned to always take larger objects
(and even not so large objects) by const reference parameters in functions,
because that's more efficient. (The heavier an object is to deep-copy,
the more efficient a reference to it becomes, obviously.)

However, not many of them consider the *thread-safety* problem that taking
a parameter by reference introduces. In single-threaded programs this is
rather irrelevant, but multithreaded programming is becoming more and more
common every day. Also, if you are writing a library to be used in programs
out there, you have to consider its thread-safety even if the library itself
doesn't use threads.

What is this thread-safety problem introduced by references (especially
when we are writing a function that takes a parameter by reference)? The
fact that in theory another thread could modify the object being referred
to, at the same time that this function is trying to read it.

And there's nothing this function can do to defend against that. (Unless
this function cooperates with the calling code to make it thread-safe, eg.
by using a mutex offered by the calling code.) Even if the function is
internally thread-safe, it can't help the fact that it's using an external
resource without mutual exclusion (unless provided by the calling code).

How many times have you thought about the fact that taking a parameter
by reference makes the function automatically not-thread-safe? I know
I haven't. Like ever.

And, as has been pointed out, in the calling code itself it's not obvious
that a function is taking a parameter by reference, and thus might need
mutual exclusion.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-11-22 09:52 +0000
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-11-22 11:23 +0100
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-11-22 13:27 +0200
    Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-11-23 06:52 +0000
      Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 13:51 +0100
        Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-11-23 13:46 +0000
          Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-11-30 13:59 +0200
            Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-01 06:45 +0000
              Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-01 09:19 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2022-12-01 14:06 +0100
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-01 16:45 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-01 16:02 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-01 20:21 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-01 19:09 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-02 05:53 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-02 14:36 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 12:29 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-02 20:55 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 12:58 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-02 21:18 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 14:16 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2022-12-02 21:09 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 13:22 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2022-12-02 21:36 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 14:13 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-02 18:33 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-01 11:59 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-01 23:53 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-02 04:11 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 12:21 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-06 11:36 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 12:26 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-06 20:39 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-06 23:53 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 13:59 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-06 22:04 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-06 21:38 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-07 15:22 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-07 18:37 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 14:01 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-07 09:05 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 12:48 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 12:50 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-08 07:52 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-08 05:50 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-08 13:30 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 12:50 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-11 12:18 +0100
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-08 13:38 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 16:45 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 04:35 -0800
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 15:36 +0100
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-11-22 15:21 +0000
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-22 10:48 -0500
    Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 13:18 -0800
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references El Jo <giorgio.zoppi@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 13:41 -0800
    Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 13:51 -0800
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 20:08 +0100

csiph-web