Why is `const int& k = i; ++i; ` possible?












7















I am supposed to determine whether this function is syntactically correct:



int f3(int i, int j) { const int& k=i; ++i; return k; }



I have tested it out and it compiles with my main function.



I do not understand why this is so.



Surely by calling the function f3 I create copies of the variables iand j in a new memory space and setting const int& k=i I am setting the memory space of the newly created k to the exact the same space of the memory space of the copied i, therefore any change, i.e. the increment ++iwill result in ++k which is not possible given that it was set const



Any help is greatly appreciated






c++ syntax reference const







share|improve this question



























    7















    I am supposed to determine whether this function is syntactically correct:



    int f3(int i, int j) { const int& k=i; ++i; return k; }



    I have tested it out and it compiles with my main function.



    I do not understand why this is so.



    Surely by calling the function f3 I create copies of the variables iand j in a new memory space and setting const int& k=i I am setting the memory space of the newly created k to the exact the same space of the memory space of the copied i, therefore any change, i.e. the increment ++iwill result in ++k which is not possible given that it was set const



    Any help is greatly appreciated






    c++ syntax reference const







    share|improve this question

























      7












      7








      7








      I am supposed to determine whether this function is syntactically correct:



      int f3(int i, int j) { const int& k=i; ++i; return k; }



      I have tested it out and it compiles with my main function.



      I do not understand why this is so.



      Surely by calling the function f3 I create copies of the variables iand j in a new memory space and setting const int& k=i I am setting the memory space of the newly created k to the exact the same space of the memory space of the copied i, therefore any change, i.e. the increment ++iwill result in ++k which is not possible given that it was set const



      Any help is greatly appreciated






      c++ syntax reference const







      share|improve this question














      I am supposed to determine whether this function is syntactically correct:



      int f3(int i, int j) { const int& k=i; ++i; return k; }



      I have tested it out and it compiles with my main function.



      I do not understand why this is so.



      Surely by calling the function f3 I create copies of the variables iand j in a new memory space and setting const int& k=i I am setting the memory space of the newly created k to the exact the same space of the memory space of the copied i, therefore any change, i.e. the increment ++iwill result in ++k which is not possible given that it was set const



      Any help is greatly appreciated






      c++ syntax reference const




      c++ syntax reference const






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 7 hours ago









      user9078057user9078057

      1168




      1168
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          15















          the increment ++iwill result in ++k which is not possible given that it was set const




          That's a misunderstanding.



          You may not change the value of the object through k but it can still be changed through other means. In other words, ++k is not allowed but ++i is still allowed, which will indirectly modify the value of k.



          Here's a far-fetched analogy.



          You may look through the window of a store and see what's inside but you won't be able to change what's inside the store. However, an employee, who is inside the store, can change the contents of the store. You will see that change from
          outside. You have const access or view access to the store while the employee has non-const access or change access to the store.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 5





            Not so far-fetched. That's a good analogy.

            – user4581301
            7 hours ago











          • Note that this is so because i itself is not const. So we have a const reference a non-const object. Const objects are different.

            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago











          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
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55367062%2fwhy-is-const-int-k-i-i-possible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          15















          the increment ++iwill result in ++k which is not possible given that it was set const




          That's a misunderstanding.



          You may not change the value of the object through k but it can still be changed through other means. In other words, ++k is not allowed but ++i is still allowed, which will indirectly modify the value of k.



          Here's a far-fetched analogy.



          You may look through the window of a store and see what's inside but you won't be able to change what's inside the store. However, an employee, who is inside the store, can change the contents of the store. You will see that change from
          outside. You have const access or view access to the store while the employee has non-const access or change access to the store.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 5





            Not so far-fetched. That's a good analogy.

            – user4581301
            7 hours ago











          • Note that this is so because i itself is not const. So we have a const reference a non-const object. Const objects are different.

            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago
















          15















          the increment ++iwill result in ++k which is not possible given that it was set const




          That's a misunderstanding.



          You may not change the value of the object through k but it can still be changed through other means. In other words, ++k is not allowed but ++i is still allowed, which will indirectly modify the value of k.



          Here's a far-fetched analogy.



          You may look through the window of a store and see what's inside but you won't be able to change what's inside the store. However, an employee, who is inside the store, can change the contents of the store. You will see that change from
          outside. You have const access or view access to the store while the employee has non-const access or change access to the store.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 5





            Not so far-fetched. That's a good analogy.

            – user4581301
            7 hours ago











          • Note that this is so because i itself is not const. So we have a const reference a non-const object. Const objects are different.

            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago














          15












          15








          15








          the increment ++iwill result in ++k which is not possible given that it was set const




          That's a misunderstanding.



          You may not change the value of the object through k but it can still be changed through other means. In other words, ++k is not allowed but ++i is still allowed, which will indirectly modify the value of k.



          Here's a far-fetched analogy.



          You may look through the window of a store and see what's inside but you won't be able to change what's inside the store. However, an employee, who is inside the store, can change the contents of the store. You will see that change from
          outside. You have const access or view access to the store while the employee has non-const access or change access to the store.






          share|improve this answer
















          the increment ++iwill result in ++k which is not possible given that it was set const




          That's a misunderstanding.



          You may not change the value of the object through k but it can still be changed through other means. In other words, ++k is not allowed but ++i is still allowed, which will indirectly modify the value of k.



          Here's a far-fetched analogy.



          You may look through the window of a store and see what's inside but you won't be able to change what's inside the store. However, an employee, who is inside the store, can change the contents of the store. You will see that change from
          outside. You have const access or view access to the store while the employee has non-const access or change access to the store.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 7 hours ago

























          answered 7 hours ago









          R SahuR Sahu

          169k1294193




          169k1294193








          • 5





            Not so far-fetched. That's a good analogy.

            – user4581301
            7 hours ago











          • Note that this is so because i itself is not const. So we have a const reference a non-const object. Const objects are different.

            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago














          • 5





            Not so far-fetched. That's a good analogy.

            – user4581301
            7 hours ago











          • Note that this is so because i itself is not const. So we have a const reference a non-const object. Const objects are different.

            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago








          5




          5





          Not so far-fetched. That's a good analogy.

          – user4581301
          7 hours ago





          Not so far-fetched. That's a good analogy.

          – user4581301
          7 hours ago













          Note that this is so because i itself is not const. So we have a const reference a non-const object. Const objects are different.

          – David Schwartz
          7 hours ago





          Note that this is so because i itself is not const. So we have a const reference a non-const object. Const objects are different.

          – David Schwartz
          7 hours ago




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55367062%2fwhy-is-const-int-k-i-i-possible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          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







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

          Image
          .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75
          Read more

          Berlina muro

          Image
          La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l
          Read more

          Berlina aerponto

          Image
          Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa
          Read more