Does it make sense for a function to return an rvalue reference?Is returning by rvalue reference more efficient?What should main() return in C and C++?Advantages of using forwardClasses, Rvalues and Rvalue ReferencesImage Processing: Algorithm Improvement for 'Coca-Cola Can' RecognitionWhy should I use a pointer rather than the object itself?Does this rvalue signature pattern make sense?Replacing a 32-bit loop counter with 64-bit introduces crazy performance deviationsReturn value or rvalue reference?Rvalue and Lvalue Referencesrvalue reference or forwarding reference?
How to cope with regret and shame about not fully utilizing opportunities during PhD?
Are there any established rules for splitting books into parts, chapters, sections etc?
Magento 2: How to get type columns of table in sql?
Why is it harder to turn a motor/generator with shorted terminals?
Can I say: "When was your train leaving?" if the train leaves in the future?
Quote from Leibniz
Jesus' words on the Jews
High Memory Utilization in Juniper ACX2100
Why are solar panels kept tilted?
Conditional probability - sum of dice is even given that at least one is a five
Extracting sublists that contain similar elements
Could there be a material that inverts the colours seen through it?
When a land becomes a creature, is it untapped?
What information do scammers need to withdraw money from an account?
CPLD based Pierce oscillator
Jumping frame contents with beamer and pgfplots
How to distinguish PICTURE OF ME and PICTURE OF MINE in Chinese?
In books, how many dragons are there in present time?
What's tha name for when you write multiple voices on same staff? And are there any cons?
Why did the metro bus stop at each railway crossing, despite no warning indicating a train was coming?
Does SQL Server allow (make visible) DDL inside a transaction to the transaction prior to commit?
Find hamming distance between two Strings of equal length in Java
What to do if SUS scores contradict qualitative feedback?
Anabelian geometry ~ higher category theory
Does it make sense for a function to return an rvalue reference?
Is returning by rvalue reference more efficient?What should main() return in C and C++?Advantages of using forwardClasses, Rvalues and Rvalue ReferencesImage Processing: Algorithm Improvement for 'Coca-Cola Can' RecognitionWhy should I use a pointer rather than the object itself?Does this rvalue signature pattern make sense?Replacing a 32-bit loop counter with 64-bit introduces crazy performance deviationsReturn value or rvalue reference?Rvalue and Lvalue Referencesrvalue reference or forwarding reference?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
What would be a valid use case for a signature like this?:
T&& foo();
Or is the rvalue ref only intended for use as argument?
How would one use a function like this?
T&& t = foo(); // is this a thing? And when would t get destructed?
c++
add a comment |
What would be a valid use case for a signature like this?:
T&& foo();
Or is the rvalue ref only intended for use as argument?
How would one use a function like this?
T&& t = foo(); // is this a thing? And when would t get destructed?
c++
6
std::move
comes to mind. It certainly returnsT&&
. Edit :std::optional::value
also has anT&&
overload. Edit 2 : It also has aconst T &&
overload, though I'll admit I don't understand the meaning.
– François Andrieux
May 2 at 19:32
1
@FrançoisAndrieux thestd::get
family of functions, too.
– Brian
May 2 at 19:34
1
See this answer.
– lubgr
May 2 at 19:37
Isn't that a forwarding reference?
– user2357112
May 3 at 1:52
add a comment |
What would be a valid use case for a signature like this?:
T&& foo();
Or is the rvalue ref only intended for use as argument?
How would one use a function like this?
T&& t = foo(); // is this a thing? And when would t get destructed?
c++
What would be a valid use case for a signature like this?:
T&& foo();
Or is the rvalue ref only intended for use as argument?
How would one use a function like this?
T&& t = foo(); // is this a thing? And when would t get destructed?
c++
c++
edited May 3 at 2:35
Boann
37.8k1291123
37.8k1291123
asked May 2 at 19:22
Martin B.Martin B.
862315
862315
6
std::move
comes to mind. It certainly returnsT&&
. Edit :std::optional::value
also has anT&&
overload. Edit 2 : It also has aconst T &&
overload, though I'll admit I don't understand the meaning.
– François Andrieux
May 2 at 19:32
1
@FrançoisAndrieux thestd::get
family of functions, too.
– Brian
May 2 at 19:34
1
See this answer.
– lubgr
May 2 at 19:37
Isn't that a forwarding reference?
– user2357112
May 3 at 1:52
add a comment |
6
std::move
comes to mind. It certainly returnsT&&
. Edit :std::optional::value
also has anT&&
overload. Edit 2 : It also has aconst T &&
overload, though I'll admit I don't understand the meaning.
– François Andrieux
May 2 at 19:32
1
@FrançoisAndrieux thestd::get
family of functions, too.
– Brian
May 2 at 19:34
1
See this answer.
– lubgr
May 2 at 19:37
Isn't that a forwarding reference?
– user2357112
May 3 at 1:52
6
6
std::move
comes to mind. It certainly returns T&&
. Edit : std::optional::value
also has an T&&
overload. Edit 2 : It also has a const T &&
overload, though I'll admit I don't understand the meaning.– François Andrieux
May 2 at 19:32
std::move
comes to mind. It certainly returns T&&
. Edit : std::optional::value
also has an T&&
overload. Edit 2 : It also has a const T &&
overload, though I'll admit I don't understand the meaning.– François Andrieux
May 2 at 19:32
1
1
@FrançoisAndrieux the
std::get
family of functions, too.– Brian
May 2 at 19:34
@FrançoisAndrieux the
std::get
family of functions, too.– Brian
May 2 at 19:34
1
1
See this answer.
– lubgr
May 2 at 19:37
See this answer.
– lubgr
May 2 at 19:37
Isn't that a forwarding reference?
– user2357112
May 3 at 1:52
Isn't that a forwarding reference?
– user2357112
May 3 at 1:52
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
For a free function it doesn't make much sense to return a rvalue reference. If it is a non-static local object then you never want to return a reference or pointer to it because it will be destroyed after the function returns. It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not.
One thing that can greatly benefit from returning an rvalue reference is a member function of a temporary object. Lets say you have
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() return bar;
;
If you do
auto vec = foo(10).get_vec();
you have to copy because get_vec
returns an lvalue. If you instead use
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() & return bar;
std::vector<int>&& get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
;
Then vec
would be able to move the vector returned by get_vec
and you save yourself an expensive copy operation.
@FrançoisAndrieux That's covered by my It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not. catch all. I know there are cases but I really didn't want to try and list them all.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:37
Is there a reason to prefer returning by rvalue-ref compared to returning by value here?
– super
May 2 at 19:38
@super I take it your talking about theget_vec
case? If you return by value you incur 2 move operations. Passing by rvalue reference you only have 1 move.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:39
1
@NathanOliver Well, you can call it on any rvalue (e.g.std::move(a).get_vec()
). My point is that you're potentially returning a reference to an object that's about to be destroyed. It's the same problem as returning a reference to a local function variable.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:03
2
std::vector<int> get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
in this case ends up being better 999/1000. Can you come up with a better example?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
May 2 at 20:08
|
show 2 more comments
T&& t = foo(); // is this a thing? And when would t get destructed?
An rvalue reference is really similar to a lvalue reference. Think about your example like it was normal references:
T& foo();
T& t = foo(); // when is t destroyed?
The answer is that t
is still valid to use as long as the object is refers to lives.
The same answer still applies to you rvalue reference example.
But... does it make sense to return an rvalue reference?
Sometimes, yes. But very rarely.
consider this:
std::vector<int> v = ...;
// type is std::tuple<std::vector<int>&&>
auto parameters = std::forward_as_tuple(std::move(v));
// fwd is a rvalue reference since std::get returns one.
// fwd is valid as long as v is.
decltype(auto) fwd = std::get<0>(parameters);
// useful for calling function in generic context without copying
consume(std::get<0>(parameters));
So yes there are example. Here, another interesting one:
struct wrapper
auto operator*() & -> Heavy&
return heavy;
auto operator*() && -> Heavy&&
return std::move(heavy);
private:
Heavy instance;
;
// by value
void use_heavy(Heavy);
// since the wrapper is a temporary, the
// Heavy contained will be a temporary too.
use_heavy(*make_wrapper());
In the last example, if thewrapper
instance you use this on is a temporary,operator*()
returns a reference toinstance
, which is likewise a temporary. So after the function returns you have a reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:51
@CruzJean corrected
– Guillaume Racicot
May 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
I think a use case would be to explicitly give permission to "empty" some non-local variable. Perhaps something like this:
class Logger
public:
void log(const char* msg)
logs.append(msg);
std::vector<std::string>&& dumpLogs()
return std::move(logs);
private:
std::vector<std::string> logs;
;
But I admit I made this up now, I never actually used it and it also can be done like this:
std::vector<std::string> dumpLogs()
auto dumped_logs = logs;
return dumped_logs;
That's what the other answers have come up with as well, but in the case where this is called on a temporary object, by the time the function returns you have an (rvalue) reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:52
@CruzJean Well, my answer was here first and no one downvoted/complained yet so I will keep it here. I am not returning any reference to a temporary anywhere.
– Quimby
May 2 at 20:58
return std::move(logs);
where the return value is a reference type and*this
is a temporary (due to being an rvalue method) makesthis->logs
a temporary as well. That's the reference to a temporary I mean.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 22:25
@CruzJean Do you mean e.g.auto&& x = Logger.dumpLogs();
? Yes, that is dangling reference, but that happens for all getters no matter what type of reference they return. My use case would be something likeLogger l; /*calls to log()*/, auto logs = l.dumpLogs();/*log again.. and repeat.*/
– Quimby
May 3 at 10:54
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55958970%2fdoes-it-make-sense-for-a-function-to-return-an-rvalue-reference%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
For a free function it doesn't make much sense to return a rvalue reference. If it is a non-static local object then you never want to return a reference or pointer to it because it will be destroyed after the function returns. It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not.
One thing that can greatly benefit from returning an rvalue reference is a member function of a temporary object. Lets say you have
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() return bar;
;
If you do
auto vec = foo(10).get_vec();
you have to copy because get_vec
returns an lvalue. If you instead use
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() & return bar;
std::vector<int>&& get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
;
Then vec
would be able to move the vector returned by get_vec
and you save yourself an expensive copy operation.
@FrançoisAndrieux That's covered by my It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not. catch all. I know there are cases but I really didn't want to try and list them all.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:37
Is there a reason to prefer returning by rvalue-ref compared to returning by value here?
– super
May 2 at 19:38
@super I take it your talking about theget_vec
case? If you return by value you incur 2 move operations. Passing by rvalue reference you only have 1 move.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:39
1
@NathanOliver Well, you can call it on any rvalue (e.g.std::move(a).get_vec()
). My point is that you're potentially returning a reference to an object that's about to be destroyed. It's the same problem as returning a reference to a local function variable.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:03
2
std::vector<int> get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
in this case ends up being better 999/1000. Can you come up with a better example?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
May 2 at 20:08
|
show 2 more comments
For a free function it doesn't make much sense to return a rvalue reference. If it is a non-static local object then you never want to return a reference or pointer to it because it will be destroyed after the function returns. It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not.
One thing that can greatly benefit from returning an rvalue reference is a member function of a temporary object. Lets say you have
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() return bar;
;
If you do
auto vec = foo(10).get_vec();
you have to copy because get_vec
returns an lvalue. If you instead use
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() & return bar;
std::vector<int>&& get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
;
Then vec
would be able to move the vector returned by get_vec
and you save yourself an expensive copy operation.
@FrançoisAndrieux That's covered by my It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not. catch all. I know there are cases but I really didn't want to try and list them all.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:37
Is there a reason to prefer returning by rvalue-ref compared to returning by value here?
– super
May 2 at 19:38
@super I take it your talking about theget_vec
case? If you return by value you incur 2 move operations. Passing by rvalue reference you only have 1 move.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:39
1
@NathanOliver Well, you can call it on any rvalue (e.g.std::move(a).get_vec()
). My point is that you're potentially returning a reference to an object that's about to be destroyed. It's the same problem as returning a reference to a local function variable.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:03
2
std::vector<int> get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
in this case ends up being better 999/1000. Can you come up with a better example?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
May 2 at 20:08
|
show 2 more comments
For a free function it doesn't make much sense to return a rvalue reference. If it is a non-static local object then you never want to return a reference or pointer to it because it will be destroyed after the function returns. It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not.
One thing that can greatly benefit from returning an rvalue reference is a member function of a temporary object. Lets say you have
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() return bar;
;
If you do
auto vec = foo(10).get_vec();
you have to copy because get_vec
returns an lvalue. If you instead use
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() & return bar;
std::vector<int>&& get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
;
Then vec
would be able to move the vector returned by get_vec
and you save yourself an expensive copy operation.
For a free function it doesn't make much sense to return a rvalue reference. If it is a non-static local object then you never want to return a reference or pointer to it because it will be destroyed after the function returns. It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not.
One thing that can greatly benefit from returning an rvalue reference is a member function of a temporary object. Lets say you have
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() return bar;
;
If you do
auto vec = foo(10).get_vec();
you have to copy because get_vec
returns an lvalue. If you instead use
class foo
std::vector<int> bar
public:
foo(int n) : bar(n)
std::vector<int>& get_vec() & return bar;
std::vector<int>&& get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
;
Then vec
would be able to move the vector returned by get_vec
and you save yourself an expensive copy operation.
answered May 2 at 19:34
NathanOliverNathanOliver
101k17145227
101k17145227
@FrançoisAndrieux That's covered by my It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not. catch all. I know there are cases but I really didn't want to try and list them all.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:37
Is there a reason to prefer returning by rvalue-ref compared to returning by value here?
– super
May 2 at 19:38
@super I take it your talking about theget_vec
case? If you return by value you incur 2 move operations. Passing by rvalue reference you only have 1 move.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:39
1
@NathanOliver Well, you can call it on any rvalue (e.g.std::move(a).get_vec()
). My point is that you're potentially returning a reference to an object that's about to be destroyed. It's the same problem as returning a reference to a local function variable.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:03
2
std::vector<int> get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
in this case ends up being better 999/1000. Can you come up with a better example?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
May 2 at 20:08
|
show 2 more comments
@FrançoisAndrieux That's covered by my It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not. catch all. I know there are cases but I really didn't want to try and list them all.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:37
Is there a reason to prefer returning by rvalue-ref compared to returning by value here?
– super
May 2 at 19:38
@super I take it your talking about theget_vec
case? If you return by value you incur 2 move operations. Passing by rvalue reference you only have 1 move.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:39
1
@NathanOliver Well, you can call it on any rvalue (e.g.std::move(a).get_vec()
). My point is that you're potentially returning a reference to an object that's about to be destroyed. It's the same problem as returning a reference to a local function variable.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:03
2
std::vector<int> get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
in this case ends up being better 999/1000. Can you come up with a better example?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
May 2 at 20:08
@FrançoisAndrieux That's covered by my It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not. catch all. I know there are cases but I really didn't want to try and list them all.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:37
@FrançoisAndrieux That's covered by my It can possibly make sense to return a rvalue reference to an object that you passed to the function though. It really depends on the use case for if it makes sense or not. catch all. I know there are cases but I really didn't want to try and list them all.
– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:37
Is there a reason to prefer returning by rvalue-ref compared to returning by value here?
– super
May 2 at 19:38
Is there a reason to prefer returning by rvalue-ref compared to returning by value here?
– super
May 2 at 19:38
@super I take it your talking about the
get_vec
case? If you return by value you incur 2 move operations. Passing by rvalue reference you only have 1 move.– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:39
@super I take it your talking about the
get_vec
case? If you return by value you incur 2 move operations. Passing by rvalue reference you only have 1 move.– NathanOliver
May 2 at 19:39
1
1
@NathanOliver Well, you can call it on any rvalue (e.g.
std::move(a).get_vec()
). My point is that you're potentially returning a reference to an object that's about to be destroyed. It's the same problem as returning a reference to a local function variable.– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:03
@NathanOliver Well, you can call it on any rvalue (e.g.
std::move(a).get_vec()
). My point is that you're potentially returning a reference to an object that's about to be destroyed. It's the same problem as returning a reference to a local function variable.– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:03
2
2
std::vector<int> get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
in this case ends up being better 999/1000. Can you come up with a better example?– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
May 2 at 20:08
std::vector<int> get_vec() && return std::move(bar);
in this case ends up being better 999/1000. Can you come up with a better example?– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
May 2 at 20:08
|
show 2 more comments
T&& t = foo(); // is this a thing? And when would t get destructed?
An rvalue reference is really similar to a lvalue reference. Think about your example like it was normal references:
T& foo();
T& t = foo(); // when is t destroyed?
The answer is that t
is still valid to use as long as the object is refers to lives.
The same answer still applies to you rvalue reference example.
But... does it make sense to return an rvalue reference?
Sometimes, yes. But very rarely.
consider this:
std::vector<int> v = ...;
// type is std::tuple<std::vector<int>&&>
auto parameters = std::forward_as_tuple(std::move(v));
// fwd is a rvalue reference since std::get returns one.
// fwd is valid as long as v is.
decltype(auto) fwd = std::get<0>(parameters);
// useful for calling function in generic context without copying
consume(std::get<0>(parameters));
So yes there are example. Here, another interesting one:
struct wrapper
auto operator*() & -> Heavy&
return heavy;
auto operator*() && -> Heavy&&
return std::move(heavy);
private:
Heavy instance;
;
// by value
void use_heavy(Heavy);
// since the wrapper is a temporary, the
// Heavy contained will be a temporary too.
use_heavy(*make_wrapper());
In the last example, if thewrapper
instance you use this on is a temporary,operator*()
returns a reference toinstance
, which is likewise a temporary. So after the function returns you have a reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:51
@CruzJean corrected
– Guillaume Racicot
May 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
T&& t = foo(); // is this a thing? And when would t get destructed?
An rvalue reference is really similar to a lvalue reference. Think about your example like it was normal references:
T& foo();
T& t = foo(); // when is t destroyed?
The answer is that t
is still valid to use as long as the object is refers to lives.
The same answer still applies to you rvalue reference example.
But... does it make sense to return an rvalue reference?
Sometimes, yes. But very rarely.
consider this:
std::vector<int> v = ...;
// type is std::tuple<std::vector<int>&&>
auto parameters = std::forward_as_tuple(std::move(v));
// fwd is a rvalue reference since std::get returns one.
// fwd is valid as long as v is.
decltype(auto) fwd = std::get<0>(parameters);
// useful for calling function in generic context without copying
consume(std::get<0>(parameters));
So yes there are example. Here, another interesting one:
struct wrapper
auto operator*() & -> Heavy&
return heavy;
auto operator*() && -> Heavy&&
return std::move(heavy);
private:
Heavy instance;
;
// by value
void use_heavy(Heavy);
// since the wrapper is a temporary, the
// Heavy contained will be a temporary too.
use_heavy(*make_wrapper());
In the last example, if thewrapper
instance you use this on is a temporary,operator*()
returns a reference toinstance
, which is likewise a temporary. So after the function returns you have a reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:51
@CruzJean corrected
– Guillaume Racicot
May 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
T&& t = foo(); // is this a thing? And when would t get destructed?
An rvalue reference is really similar to a lvalue reference. Think about your example like it was normal references:
T& foo();
T& t = foo(); // when is t destroyed?
The answer is that t
is still valid to use as long as the object is refers to lives.
The same answer still applies to you rvalue reference example.
But... does it make sense to return an rvalue reference?
Sometimes, yes. But very rarely.
consider this:
std::vector<int> v = ...;
// type is std::tuple<std::vector<int>&&>
auto parameters = std::forward_as_tuple(std::move(v));
// fwd is a rvalue reference since std::get returns one.
// fwd is valid as long as v is.
decltype(auto) fwd = std::get<0>(parameters);
// useful for calling function in generic context without copying
consume(std::get<0>(parameters));
So yes there are example. Here, another interesting one:
struct wrapper
auto operator*() & -> Heavy&
return heavy;
auto operator*() && -> Heavy&&
return std::move(heavy);
private:
Heavy instance;
;
// by value
void use_heavy(Heavy);
// since the wrapper is a temporary, the
// Heavy contained will be a temporary too.
use_heavy(*make_wrapper());
T&& t = foo(); // is this a thing? And when would t get destructed?
An rvalue reference is really similar to a lvalue reference. Think about your example like it was normal references:
T& foo();
T& t = foo(); // when is t destroyed?
The answer is that t
is still valid to use as long as the object is refers to lives.
The same answer still applies to you rvalue reference example.
But... does it make sense to return an rvalue reference?
Sometimes, yes. But very rarely.
consider this:
std::vector<int> v = ...;
// type is std::tuple<std::vector<int>&&>
auto parameters = std::forward_as_tuple(std::move(v));
// fwd is a rvalue reference since std::get returns one.
// fwd is valid as long as v is.
decltype(auto) fwd = std::get<0>(parameters);
// useful for calling function in generic context without copying
consume(std::get<0>(parameters));
So yes there are example. Here, another interesting one:
struct wrapper
auto operator*() & -> Heavy&
return heavy;
auto operator*() && -> Heavy&&
return std::move(heavy);
private:
Heavy instance;
;
// by value
void use_heavy(Heavy);
// since the wrapper is a temporary, the
// Heavy contained will be a temporary too.
use_heavy(*make_wrapper());
edited May 2 at 20:57
answered May 2 at 19:35
Guillaume RacicotGuillaume Racicot
17.1k53875
17.1k53875
In the last example, if thewrapper
instance you use this on is a temporary,operator*()
returns a reference toinstance
, which is likewise a temporary. So after the function returns you have a reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:51
@CruzJean corrected
– Guillaume Racicot
May 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
In the last example, if thewrapper
instance you use this on is a temporary,operator*()
returns a reference toinstance
, which is likewise a temporary. So after the function returns you have a reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:51
@CruzJean corrected
– Guillaume Racicot
May 2 at 20:57
In the last example, if the
wrapper
instance you use this on is a temporary, operator*()
returns a reference to instance
, which is likewise a temporary. So after the function returns you have a reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:51
In the last example, if the
wrapper
instance you use this on is a temporary, operator*()
returns a reference to instance
, which is likewise a temporary. So after the function returns you have a reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:51
@CruzJean corrected
– Guillaume Racicot
May 2 at 20:57
@CruzJean corrected
– Guillaume Racicot
May 2 at 20:57
add a comment |
I think a use case would be to explicitly give permission to "empty" some non-local variable. Perhaps something like this:
class Logger
public:
void log(const char* msg)
logs.append(msg);
std::vector<std::string>&& dumpLogs()
return std::move(logs);
private:
std::vector<std::string> logs;
;
But I admit I made this up now, I never actually used it and it also can be done like this:
std::vector<std::string> dumpLogs()
auto dumped_logs = logs;
return dumped_logs;
That's what the other answers have come up with as well, but in the case where this is called on a temporary object, by the time the function returns you have an (rvalue) reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:52
@CruzJean Well, my answer was here first and no one downvoted/complained yet so I will keep it here. I am not returning any reference to a temporary anywhere.
– Quimby
May 2 at 20:58
return std::move(logs);
where the return value is a reference type and*this
is a temporary (due to being an rvalue method) makesthis->logs
a temporary as well. That's the reference to a temporary I mean.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 22:25
@CruzJean Do you mean e.g.auto&& x = Logger.dumpLogs();
? Yes, that is dangling reference, but that happens for all getters no matter what type of reference they return. My use case would be something likeLogger l; /*calls to log()*/, auto logs = l.dumpLogs();/*log again.. and repeat.*/
– Quimby
May 3 at 10:54
add a comment |
I think a use case would be to explicitly give permission to "empty" some non-local variable. Perhaps something like this:
class Logger
public:
void log(const char* msg)
logs.append(msg);
std::vector<std::string>&& dumpLogs()
return std::move(logs);
private:
std::vector<std::string> logs;
;
But I admit I made this up now, I never actually used it and it also can be done like this:
std::vector<std::string> dumpLogs()
auto dumped_logs = logs;
return dumped_logs;
That's what the other answers have come up with as well, but in the case where this is called on a temporary object, by the time the function returns you have an (rvalue) reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:52
@CruzJean Well, my answer was here first and no one downvoted/complained yet so I will keep it here. I am not returning any reference to a temporary anywhere.
– Quimby
May 2 at 20:58
return std::move(logs);
where the return value is a reference type and*this
is a temporary (due to being an rvalue method) makesthis->logs
a temporary as well. That's the reference to a temporary I mean.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 22:25
@CruzJean Do you mean e.g.auto&& x = Logger.dumpLogs();
? Yes, that is dangling reference, but that happens for all getters no matter what type of reference they return. My use case would be something likeLogger l; /*calls to log()*/, auto logs = l.dumpLogs();/*log again.. and repeat.*/
– Quimby
May 3 at 10:54
add a comment |
I think a use case would be to explicitly give permission to "empty" some non-local variable. Perhaps something like this:
class Logger
public:
void log(const char* msg)
logs.append(msg);
std::vector<std::string>&& dumpLogs()
return std::move(logs);
private:
std::vector<std::string> logs;
;
But I admit I made this up now, I never actually used it and it also can be done like this:
std::vector<std::string> dumpLogs()
auto dumped_logs = logs;
return dumped_logs;
I think a use case would be to explicitly give permission to "empty" some non-local variable. Perhaps something like this:
class Logger
public:
void log(const char* msg)
logs.append(msg);
std::vector<std::string>&& dumpLogs()
return std::move(logs);
private:
std::vector<std::string> logs;
;
But I admit I made this up now, I never actually used it and it also can be done like this:
std::vector<std::string> dumpLogs()
auto dumped_logs = logs;
return dumped_logs;
answered May 2 at 19:32
QuimbyQuimby
1,548814
1,548814
That's what the other answers have come up with as well, but in the case where this is called on a temporary object, by the time the function returns you have an (rvalue) reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:52
@CruzJean Well, my answer was here first and no one downvoted/complained yet so I will keep it here. I am not returning any reference to a temporary anywhere.
– Quimby
May 2 at 20:58
return std::move(logs);
where the return value is a reference type and*this
is a temporary (due to being an rvalue method) makesthis->logs
a temporary as well. That's the reference to a temporary I mean.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 22:25
@CruzJean Do you mean e.g.auto&& x = Logger.dumpLogs();
? Yes, that is dangling reference, but that happens for all getters no matter what type of reference they return. My use case would be something likeLogger l; /*calls to log()*/, auto logs = l.dumpLogs();/*log again.. and repeat.*/
– Quimby
May 3 at 10:54
add a comment |
That's what the other answers have come up with as well, but in the case where this is called on a temporary object, by the time the function returns you have an (rvalue) reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:52
@CruzJean Well, my answer was here first and no one downvoted/complained yet so I will keep it here. I am not returning any reference to a temporary anywhere.
– Quimby
May 2 at 20:58
return std::move(logs);
where the return value is a reference type and*this
is a temporary (due to being an rvalue method) makesthis->logs
a temporary as well. That's the reference to a temporary I mean.
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 22:25
@CruzJean Do you mean e.g.auto&& x = Logger.dumpLogs();
? Yes, that is dangling reference, but that happens for all getters no matter what type of reference they return. My use case would be something likeLogger l; /*calls to log()*/, auto logs = l.dumpLogs();/*log again.. and repeat.*/
– Quimby
May 3 at 10:54
That's what the other answers have come up with as well, but in the case where this is called on a temporary object, by the time the function returns you have an (rvalue) reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:52
That's what the other answers have come up with as well, but in the case where this is called on a temporary object, by the time the function returns you have an (rvalue) reference to an object whose lifetime has ended (undefined behavior).
– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 20:52
@CruzJean Well, my answer was here first and no one downvoted/complained yet so I will keep it here. I am not returning any reference to a temporary anywhere.
– Quimby
May 2 at 20:58
@CruzJean Well, my answer was here first and no one downvoted/complained yet so I will keep it here. I am not returning any reference to a temporary anywhere.
– Quimby
May 2 at 20:58
return std::move(logs);
where the return value is a reference type and *this
is a temporary (due to being an rvalue method) makes this->logs
a temporary as well. That's the reference to a temporary I mean.– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 22:25
return std::move(logs);
where the return value is a reference type and *this
is a temporary (due to being an rvalue method) makes this->logs
a temporary as well. That's the reference to a temporary I mean.– Cruz Jean
May 2 at 22:25
@CruzJean Do you mean e.g.
auto&& x = Logger.dumpLogs();
? Yes, that is dangling reference, but that happens for all getters no matter what type of reference they return. My use case would be something like Logger l; /*calls to log()*/, auto logs = l.dumpLogs();/*log again.. and repeat.*/
– Quimby
May 3 at 10:54
@CruzJean Do you mean e.g.
auto&& x = Logger.dumpLogs();
? Yes, that is dangling reference, but that happens for all getters no matter what type of reference they return. My use case would be something like Logger l; /*calls to log()*/, auto logs = l.dumpLogs();/*log again.. and repeat.*/
– Quimby
May 3 at 10:54
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55958970%2fdoes-it-make-sense-for-a-function-to-return-an-rvalue-reference%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
std::move
comes to mind. It certainly returnsT&&
. Edit :std::optional::value
also has anT&&
overload. Edit 2 : It also has aconst T &&
overload, though I'll admit I don't understand the meaning.– François Andrieux
May 2 at 19:32
1
@FrançoisAndrieux the
std::get
family of functions, too.– Brian
May 2 at 19:34
1
See this answer.
– lubgr
May 2 at 19:37
Isn't that a forwarding reference?
– user2357112
May 3 at 1:52