Pass by reference (C++ only) - IBM Documentation https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.4.0?topic=calls-pass-by-reference-c-only

Yes. Even pointers are passed by value. So passing arguments by pointers is not pass by reference in C++

No... pointers are not passed by values, pointers are memory areas that is passed when you specify... that means the values stored in that memory area can be changed... by reference of where the value is stored in the memory. By value means when variable is passed as a number... like int 45 will be passed as 45, the function cannot change or modify that information.

Which is why I said you don't understand the semantics. In your example you did void fun(int* p) { *p = 5; // this changes underlying value p=0; // this does not change original pointer } int main(){ int a = 0; int* p = &a; fun(p); //a will change to 5 but p will not be 0 } It is because of this that passing by pointer exhibits "pass by value semantics". The pointed to variable does not determine the semantics. In this case it the parameter which is the pointer which determines whether it is pass by value or pass by reference semantics. In this case the pointer is passed by value. If you want to pass the pointer by reference, then the function will look like this int fun(int* &p){ *p = 5; p = 0; } Here both the pointed to value and the pointer will change. This is pass by reference semantics with pointer So in summary, YOU ARE WRONG!!!

It is not passed by value...

It is. And if you keep arguing here without any factual statements to support it, I will have to ban you. Read my post before passing off inaccurate statements as accurate.

Look, seriously I don't know what you have against me calling me stupid, and WRONG in caps... But passing by value simply means passing a value to a function... https://www.educative.io/edpresso/pass-by-value-vs-pass-by-reference

Read my post again. i have mentioned clearly there why passing pointers without using a reference to a pointer is also pass by value semantics.

You said my example was passing by value.

Yes. And I have used your example in my post to explain why.

Look, seriously I don't know what you have against me calling me stupid, and WRONG in caps... But passing by value simply means passing a value to a function... https://www.educative.io/edpresso/pass-by-value-vs-pass-by-reference

This is pass by value and not pass by reference

I have nothing against you but if you keep arguing without reading other posts, it just pisses off people.

I think you've started with this, right? We had a similar discussion with you and I remember that there was a problem with using different vocabulary. Basically, pointer to int is passed by value, that is true (but that is probably not what Tazz was talking about). int there is not passed by value, neither by reference. So it seems that you are arguing about different things

I think you've started with this, right? We had a similar discussion with you and I remember that there was a problem with using different vocabulary. Basically, pointer to int is passed by value, that is true (but that is probably not what Tazz was talking about). int there is not passed by value, neither by reference. So it seems that you are arguing about different things

Pass by value and pass by reference semantics is with respect to the paramater. It doesn't matter if the parameter is a pointer. Unless the parameter is a reference type, pass by reference semantics is not used. For pointers,people generally use pass by pointers to describe that they are talking about the pointed to value because passing by pointers is also pass by value.

What do you consider reference, what do you think that is for? Reference of what? Memory location... that is it.

It doesn't matter what she is talking about. The point is that "pass by reference semantics" is wrong in her use case

Yes. References are implemented underneath using const pointers too. But that doesn't change the fact that "pass by reference" is used only for reference arguments in C++ and not for parameters of other types

Well, if you don't want to understand what your opponent is trying to say, then you will not get to a reasonable conclusion in the discussion

I understand what she is saying and saying she is using the wrong term for it. Pass by reference has a different meaning in the C++ community. You can't change the meaning to suit your needs

So passing a variable by pointer is not passing the variable by value... it is "in technical" terms passing by "pointer" but not by value.

But the pointer is passed by value. Of you look at it from the function's perspective, it exhibits pass by value semantics. If you want to lay emphasis on the pointed to value, you have to use the term "pass by pointer" and not "pass by reference" in C++.

But the pointer is passed by value. Of you look at it from the function's perspective, it exhibits pass by value semantics. If you want to lay emphasis on the pointed to value, you have to use the term "pass by pointer" and not "pass by reference" in C++.

But the pointer is passed by value. Of you look at it from the function's perspective, it exhibits pass by value semantics. If you want to lay emphasis on the pointed to value, you have to use the term "pass by pointer" and not "pass by reference" in C++.

Can we say pass by address also?

Address is the same exact thing... reference, pointer, address... on the other hand value is a different thing, where value of the variable is passed.

No reference is different and so is pointer

so, how can i start my code? haha

No reference is different and so is pointer

reading the references :)

Everything is in reality is passed by value... there is no such thing as passing something without passing values. Reference is reference to the location where the information is stored and point is pointing to the memory area where information is stored... But value is only the value of that variable whatever it is at the time it is passed.

I understand what she is saying and saying she is using the wrong term for it. Pass by reference has a different meaning in the C++ community. You can't change the meaning to suit your needs

im reading what you sent

I don't think you do. The example was incorrect, but you pointed out an unrelated thing (maybe technically correct, but does it matter), and then you started arguing about different things

NO THIS IS WRONG. In C++ standard, references are not objects but aliases. So if you have a function which takes a reference arguments, you are not passing anything by value. The function has an alias for the original argument. In C++, you can't have pointers to references because technically they are not objects. SO ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG.

You think anything other than memory address is passed? If you think so tell me what is passed...

It doesn't matter how it is implemented underneath. The standard says that references are aliases and are not treated as objects. You can have a pointer to a pointer but you can't have a pointer to a refernce even though references are also implemented as a pointer. So references are not equal to pointers. The standard has the last word.

I am not arguing about different things. The question was about pass by reference and the example she gave was pass by pointer which is wrong and which is what I pointed out. I also said that even her case is also pass by value which is also correct.

So I'm stupid... right? And in any case it is not pass by value.

Yes it is "pass by pointer", but you started talking about "pass by value" which is confusing because a minute ago you were talking about int but suddenly you started talking about pointer to int without mentioning that explicitly

So the standard is wrong to clearly mention that references are aliases and pass by reference is meant to the refer to those cases where the parameter is a reference. So clearly you know better than the standard

I am not talking about standard... maybe you're right I have already said it before I'm not good with terminologies. But they work exactly the same way and it is not passing by value. And I didn't enjoy being called "Stupid".

Am asking again can we call it pass by address 😃

In my book you can call it anything... it is simply not passed by value... Either the variables can be passed with address or passed by value...

It is unfortunate if you pass off statements from your imaginary book in a community where there are other books which hold a higher value and which have clearly defined what pass by reference is and what pass by reference semantics is.

Just because you end up getting confused doesn't mean I am wrong. There were quite a few guys who agreed with me there. They didn't all get confused like you

When you don't even know what is passing variable by value, nice.

I know it and the standard does and we know the effects. The fact is that you don't.

What is a reference, first understand that... it is nothing but pointer to the memory location of the object, variable...

Not a pointer but an alias

What is a reference, first understand that... it is nothing but pointer to the memory location of the object, variable...

REFERENCE IN C++ is an alias according to the standard. There are two types - lvalue and rvalue references It is a compound type that is different from pointers. The standard does not mention anything about how they are implemented. So please don't argue here without knowing about them in detail.

Yeah, what is an alias? Something different other than memory area?

It can be whatever. It can be implemented using pointers. I posted a link to the standard document. So there is nothing to argue here except perhaps to pass off your ignorance.

It cannot be whatever... learn how computers work.

Lol. Someone is arguing against the standards and asking me to learn about computers. Did you read the message again? I POSETED A LINK TO THE C++ STANDARD. THE PASS BY REFERENCE SEMANTICS is explained clearly. So this is your final warning.

You think anything other than memory address is passed? If you think so tell me what is passed...

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4426474/is-passing-pointer-argument-pass-by-value-in-c Since you can't understand the standard, here is a Stackoverflow link

Did you read "as anything else"?

What is "as anything else"? The question was "is passing a pointer pass by value in C++" And the answer was YES.

So what is a reference, something special other than pointer to the location? I would like you understand how things work rather than just saying "This is what the book says".

References are pointers in most implementations. But they have a special syntax different from how you use pointers which is what makes them different. The phrases "pass by value" and "pass by reference" are used to highlight these differences

So what is a reference, something special other than pointer to the location? I would like you understand how things work rather than just saying "This is what the book says".

Well, in C++ it doesn't matter how it's implemented, it matters how it's described in the standard.

Well, in C++ it doesn't matter how it's implemented, it matters how it's described in the standard.