C / C++ / MFC

void foo(int &bar)
{
   bar += 3;
}

int main()
{
   int bar = 3;
   foo(bar); // bar is now 6
 
   int *ptr = &bar; // ptr is a pointer to an int
   foo (*ptr);
 
   return 0;
}

PJ Arends wrote:

Do you have a variable? If you do then you have a reference to it.

hINTModuleState wrote:

the reply where I replied to myself

hINTModuleState wrote:

I always vote either 1 or 2 or 5.

CPallini wrote:

since you possibly want to insist on bad design, and providing a cluttered scenario to justify your choice. You're basically saying (roughly):"Ok this is an ugly trick but I want it because my scenario is complex", that is bad design.

hINTModuleState wrote:

If it was not because of the "possibly" adverb, then I would have felt accused.

hINTModuleState wrote:

I am a good guy standing on the hand of those who worries about good design ( for the least).

CPallini wrote:

Usually the purpose is not to fool the compiler...

CPallini wrote:

Thank you, following the link I got the today's CP memorable quote

hINTModuleState wrote:

note the solution i was given : it fools the compiler and it was just what i wanted

void foo(vartype& a);

vartype* ptr = NULL;
foo(*ptr);

void CClassB::OnProcessThisThing(T &t,..other params)
{
}

class CClassA {
protected :
	virtual void OnProcessThisThing(T &t,..other params);//
};

class CClassB :public CClassA.