This page is about C++ references - a duplicate language feature introduced in order to support other duplicate features.
FAQ: It's an alias for an object - another name by which it can be called. The implementation is frequently identical to that of pointers. But don't think of references as pointers - a reference is the object.
FQA: A C++ reference is like a C++ pointer except for the following differences:
Strange phrases like "a reference IS the object" are used quite frequently in the C++ community. Such claims are only useful to hide the fact that C++ pointers & references are so similar that having both in the language is an unnecessary complication. In other contexts, the claims are simply false. For example, a wide class of bugs comes from accessing dangling references - references to objects which were already destroyed. If a reference is the object, or just another name for it, how can that happen? Names of destroyed objects are inaccessible - it takes a previously assigned pointer to access a destroyed object (C++ also breaks that rule - you can access a destroyed global object by its name from a destructor of another global object, but that's a different can of worms).
FAQ: A reference is the object, so of course you assign to the referent object.
FQA: Which means that you can't understand the effect of a statement as simple as a=b; without knowing whether a is a reference or not. A nice feature complementary to references (which make you wonder what "a" means) is operator overloading (which makes you wonder what "=" means). Be careful as you work your way through a quagmire of C++ code.
FAQ: You can assign to the return value of a function. This is useful for operator overloading, as in array[index] = value; where array is an object of a class with overloaded operator returning a reference.
FQA: Exactly - and that's why references exist.
C++ references are essential for supporting C++ operator overloading. That's because C has no facility for assigning to the result of a function call (a function can return a pointer and you can assign to the pointed object, but you need to use an asterisk for dereferencing the pointer, which is different from assigning with the built-in operator). Some might say that references serve a more generic purpose - they make pointers to objects feel like objects, but for most purposes that can be achieved with typedef TStruct* T;.
Operator overloading, in turn, is useful (though not essential) for templates - a duplicate facility solving some of the problems of C macros and creating new, frequently more costly and complicated problems. For example, operator overloading is at the heart of STL - user-defined iterators must have the interface of a C pointer for interoperability with STL algorithms, which can only be achieved with operator overloading.
Operator overloading is also useful for providing user-defined containers such as strings and vectors, duplicating the functionality of built-in strings and arrays.
C++ introduces duplicate facilities in order to introduce other duplicate facilities. Then its apologists try to convince everyone that the old facilities are "evil". Then they explain why removing the old facilities is "impractical".
FAQ: This is called method chaining. method1 returns a reference to an object of a class having method2. This is used in iostream - cout << a << endl is method chaining (the method is operator<<). A "slick" way to use method chaining is to simulate "named parameters": a.setWidth(x).setHeight(y)).
FQA: It's just like object->method1()->method2(), but with references instead of pointers.
While method chaining is natural in object-oriented languages, it's good to be aware of problems related to it. At a "high" level of discussion concerned with design, method chaining can be a sign of abstraction violation (for example, do we want the user of object to be able to do arbitrary operations with the return value of method1?). At a "low" level of discussion concerned with coding, method1 has no way to report an error except for throwing an exception, which is not always desirable. Inferring a rule like "method chaining is evil" from these issues is probably an exaggeration, but an entire design relying on method chaining may raise questions.
For example, iostream is a library for I/O and formatting, and both are a frequent source of run-time errors. How should those errors be checked in statements like cout << a << b << c ...? The method chaining used in iostream also makes formatting quite hard - consider the "I/O manipulators".
The "implementation" of named arguments using method chaining is a particularly bad joke.
FAQ: You can't. The reference is the object.
FQA: You can't do it in portable C++. While the reference is probably implemented as a pointer by your compiler, there's no C++ operator to get the address where that pointer is stored. In particular, &ref gives the address of the referent object.
One has to work around this extremely rarely, but the need can emerge, especially when the source code of parts of a program is unavailable. If the reference is stored inside an object, you can figure out its offset based on the sizes of other members of the class of the hosting object. You can then modify it as if it were a pointer (as in *(T**)p = &myobj;). This is severe abstraction violation, and it isn't portable C++. Make sure you have no other way to achieve your purpose before doing this. In particular, a way involving paying money to the vendor of the code unavailable in source form is frequently a better idea than "clever" hacks like this.
FAQ: Use references unless you can't, especially in interfaces. In particular, references can't point to NULL, so you can't have a "sentinel reference". C programmers may dislike the fact that you can't tell whether a modified value is local or a reference to something else. But this is a form of information hiding, which is good because you should program in the language of a problem rather than the machine.
FQA: As with most duplicate features, there's no good answer to this question.
C++ programmers use references to denote "a pointer which can't be null and points to a single object rather than an array". Using pointers in these cases confuses people because they assume that pointers are used in the other cases. You don't want to confuse people, so you use references to pass arguments to functions. Then it turns out that sometimes you want to pass a null pointer to those functions, and you change references to pointers throughout the code. C++ code ends up containing loads of pointers and references without an apparent reason for the choice made in each particular case.
If you choose to use a reference, make sure you don't need null pointers, pointer arithmetics or reseating. You can't have arrays of references, and you can't store references in container classes, because that would require having uninitialized references and/or pointers to references, and you can't have that. Member references in classes/structs must be initialized in constructors using the ridiculous colon syntax. This makes it harder to reuse initialization code in different constructors, and the problem propagates to the classes using your class as a member since you can't provide a default constructor. There are "smart pointers" (objects with overloaded -> and * operators), but there are no "smart references" (you can't overload the dot), so you won't be able to easily switch to something "smart" later - but that's probably rarely bad since smart pointers are rarely good.
If you choose to use a pointer, make sure you don't confuse other C++ programmers. Pointers to objects of classes with overloaded operators lead to code like (*parr)[i], which gets annoying. In many cases the compiler won't warn you when a pointer is left uninitialized, which may lead to errors harder to debug than simple null pointer dereferencing (not to mention security holes - but there's enough other possibilities for these in a C++ program to make this a separate issue).
These problems mean that in many situations, you must choose between two almost equally bad alternatives. While many people successfully use C pointers in C, it doesn't mean that always choosing pointers over references in C++ produces no new problems - C++ has features, and C++ programmers have habits interacting badly with pointers.
But this, in turn, doesn't invalidate the argument "pointers are better than references because it's easy to see whether a side-effect is local or not". Of course the behavior of references is "information hiding" - but is it the kind of information you would like to be hidden? Isn't information hiding about making it easy to figure out what a program does? How does hiding side effects, which are a very basic cross-cutting semantical aspect of any imperative language, make the code closer to "the language of the problem"?
FAQ: A "handle" is something identifying and giving access to an object. The term is meant to be vague, omitting implementation details (a handle can be a pointer or an index into an array or a database key, etc.). Handles are often encapsulated in smart pointer classes.
FQA: One very common way to implement handles in C relies on incomplete types and typedefs:
typedef struct FooState* Foo;
The definition of struct FooState is included in the files implementing Foo, but not in the files using it. This is probably the closest thing to "encapsulation" you can get in an unmanaged environment. In particular, it has important advantages compared to C++ classes:
The C handle technique is also way better than the "smart pointer" tricks in C++. In addition to readability problems posed by operator overloading (is it a bare pointer or a smart pointer?), and the tedious coding involved, smart pointers provide little encapsulation. That's because overloaded operator-> must return either a bare pointer or a smart pointer, which means that the last smart pointer must return a bare pointer, or the compilation will never end (the latter is easy to achieve with templates - like many other not so useful things). So you end up returning a bare pointer to an object of a C++ class, but in a way more convoluted than average C++ code.
When implementing "heavy" classes (unlike, for example, simple objects representing values like points in a 2-dimensional space), using C-style handles is typically much better than pointers or references to objects of C++ classes. Which is quite surprising considering the fact that supporting OO at the language level is one of the main motivations behind C++.