CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++for-loopreferencervalue-reference
LHLaurini
LHLaurini

Reputation: 2570

What's the difference between & and && in a range-based for loop?

I'm wondering what's the difference between for (auto& i : v) and for (auto&& i : v) in a range-based for loop like in this code:

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

int main() 
{
    std::vector<int> v = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};

    std::cout << "Initial values: ";

    for (auto i : v)    // Prints the initial values
        std::cout << i << ' ';
    std::cout << '\n';

    for (auto i : v)    // Doesn't modify v because i is a copy of each value
        std::cout << ++i << ' ';
    std::cout << '\n';

    for (auto& i : v)   // Modifies v because i is a reference
        std::cout << ++i << ' ';
    std::cout << '\n';

    for (auto&& i : v)  // Modifies v because i is a rvalue reference (Am I right?)
        std::cout << ++i << ' ';
    std::cout << '\n';

    for (const auto &i : v) // Wouldn't compile without the /**/ because i is const
        std::cout << /*++*/i << ' ';
    std::cout << '\n';

}

The output:

Initial values: 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7

Both seem to do the same thing here but I'd like to know what's the difference between for (auto& i : v) and for (auto&& i : v) in this code.

Upvotes: 29

Views: 6721

Answers (1)

LHLaurini
LHLaurini

Reputation: 2570

7 years after I asked this question, I feel qualified to provide a more complete answer.

I'll start by saying that the code I chose back then is not ideal for the purpose of the question. That's because there is no difference between & and && for the example.

Here's the thing: both

std::vector<int> v = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};

for (auto& i : v)
{
    std::cout << ++i << ' ';
}

std::cout << '\n';

and

std::vector<int> v = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};

for (auto&& i : v)
{
    std::cout << ++i << ' ';
}

std::cout << '\n';

are equivalent.

Here's proof:

#include <vector>

std::vector<int> v;

void f()
{
    for (auto& i : v)
    {
        static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(i), int&>::value);
    }

    for (auto&& i : v)
    {
        static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(i), int&>::value);
    }
}

But why?

Like David G said in the comments, a rvalue reference to a lvalue reference becomes a lvalue reference due to reference collapsing, eg

#include <type_traits>
using T1 = int&;
using T2 = T1&&;
static_assert(std::is_same<T1, T2>::value);

Note that this, however, is different:

for (int&& i : v)
{
    // ...
}

and will fail, since a rvalue reference can't bind to a lvalue. Reference collapsing doesn't apply to this case, since there is no type deduction.

TLDR: for the standard containers, the difference between & and && in a range-based for loop is:

  • value_type& is valid
  • value_type&& is not valid
  • Both auto& and auto&& are equivalent to value_type&

Now let's try the opposite: an iterable object that returns rvalues.

#include <iostream>

struct Generated
{
    int operator*() const
    {
        return i;
    }

    Generated& operator++()
    {
        ++i;
        return *this;
    }

    bool operator!=(const Generated& x) const
    {
        return i != x.i;
    }

    int i;
};

struct Generator
{
    Generated begin() const { return { 0 }; }
    Generated end() const { return { 6 }; }
};

int main()
{
    Generator g;

    for (const auto& i : g)
    {
        std::cout << /*++*/i << ' ';
    }
    std::cout << '\n';

    for (auto&& i : g)
    {
        std::cout << ++i << ' ';
    }
    std::cout << '\n';
}

Here, auto& doesn't work, since you can't bind a non-const lvalue to a rvalue.

Now we actually have const int& and int&&:

Generator g;

for (const auto& i : g)
{
    static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(i), const int&>::value);        
}

for (auto&& i : g)
{
    static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(i), int&&>::value); 
}

Upvotes: 9

Related Questions