Pointers vs References for Component Communication in C++: Safety and Use Cases
Is passing raw pointers safer or better than references for parent/child communication in C++?
Neither raw pointers nor references are inherently "safer" than the other in C++. Both can lead to undefined behavior if misused, specifically through accessing invalid memory (dangling pointers/references or null pointer dereferences). Safety comes from careful design, particularly regarding object lifetimes and ownership.
Let's compare them in the context of parent-child communication, like our Button
needing to know about its UI
manager.
References (UI& UIManager
)
As used in the lesson after the modification:
// Button.h
class UI;
class Button : public Rectangle {
// ...
Button(UI& UIManager, const SDL_Rect& Rect);
private:
UI& UIManager; // Reference member
};
// Button.cpp
Button::Button(UI& UIManager, const SDL_Rect& Rect) :
UIManager{UIManager}, // Must be initialized
Rectangle{Rect}
{}
void Button::SomeMethod() {
// Can directly use UIManager, assume it's valid
UIManager.SetRectangleColors(...); // Use '.'
}
// UI.h
class Button;
class UI {
// ...
private:
// Button member initialized with *this
Button C{*this, {250, 50, 50, 50}};
};
Pros:
- Guaranteed Initialization: References must be initialized when the object (
Button
) is created. This guarantees that theButton
starts its life referring to a specificUI
object. - Implicit Non-Null: References cannot be null. This eliminates the need for null checks before using
UIManager
, making the code slightly cleaner. - Clear Intent: Often signals a mandatory, non-changing relationship (a
Button
must belong to aUI
).
Cons:
- Dangling Risk: The biggest danger. If the
UI
object is destroyed while theButton
still exists, theUIManager
reference becomes dangling, and using it leads to undefined behavior (as discussed in another FAQ). Lifetime management is critical. - No Reassignment: Cannot be reseated to refer to a different
UI
object later (usually not a requirement for a parent link).
Pointers (UI* pUIManager
)
Alternatively, the Button
could store a pointer:
// Button.h
class UI;
class Button : public Rectangle {
// ...
Button(UI* pUIManager, const SDL_Rect& Rect);
private:
UI* pUIManager; // Pointer member
};
// Button.cpp
Button::Button(UI* pUIManager, const SDL_Rect& Rect) :
pUIManager{pUIManager}, // Initialize pointer
Rectangle{Rect}
{}
void Button::SomeMethod() {
// MUST check for null before use!
if (pUIManager) {
pUIManager->SetRectangleColors(...); // Use '->'
} else {
// Handle case where manager is null (optional?)
}
}
// UI.h
class Button;
class UI {
// ...
private:
// Button member initialized with 'this' (address-of)
Button C{this, {250, 50, 50, 50}};
};
Pros:
- Optional Relationship: Can be set to
nullptr
, clearly indicating that the relationship might be optional or not yet established. - Reassignable: Can be changed to point to a different
UI
object ornullptr
later (less common for parent links). - Explicit Address: Makes it slightly more explicit that you're dealing with memory addresses and indirection.
Cons:
- Null Pointer Dereference Risk: You must check if the pointer is
nullptr
before dereferencing it (pUIManager->...
). Forgetting this check leads to undefined behavior (often a crash). - Dangling Risk: Pointers can also dangle. If the
UI
object is destroyed,pUIManager
still holds the old memory address (now invalid). Accessing it is undefined behavior, just like with a dangling reference. - Slightly Clumsier Syntax: Requires the
>
operator instead of.
, and explicit null checks.
Which is "Better" or "Safer"?
Safety: Relies entirely on how you manage object lifetimes and whether you perform necessary checks (null checks for pointers). A dangling reference is just as bad as a dangling pointer or a null pointer dereference.
Use Case:
- Use references when the relationship is mandatory (the
Button
must have aUI
manager) and established at construction, and the lifetime of the referenced object (UI
) is guaranteed to exceed or equal the lifetime of the referencing object (Button
). The non-null guarantee simplifies usage code. - Use pointers when the relationship is optional (a
Button
might have aUI
manager, or it might be set later), or if you need the ability to reassign the relationship. Remember to perform null checks diligently.
For the lesson's scenario where the Button
is a member of UI
, the UI
's lifetime naturally includes the Button
's lifetime. Using a reference (UI&
) passed via *this
during construction is a very common and reasonable pattern, clearly signaling the mandatory, non-null relationship. The primary responsibility remains ensuring the UI
object itself isn't destroyed prematurely.
Creating SDL2 Buttons
Learn to create interactive buttons in SDL2 and manage communication between different UI components.