Returning a pointer to a vector element in c++

Question

I have a vector of myObjects in global scope. I have a method which uses a std::vector<myObject>::const_iterator to traverse the vector, and doing some comparisons to find a specific element. Once I have found the required element, I want to be able to return a pointer to it (the vector exists in global scope).

If I return &iterator, am I returning the address of the iterator or the address of what the iterator is pointing to?

Do I need to cast the const_iterator back to a myObject, then return the address of that?

Answer 1

Return the address of the thing pointed to by the iterator:

&(*iterator)

Edit: To clear up some confusion:

vector <int> vec;          // a global vector of ints

void f() {
   vec.push_back( 1 );    // add to the global vector
   vector <int>::iterator it = vec.begin();
   * it = 2;              // change what was 1 to 2
   int * p = &(*it);      // get pointer to first element
   * p = 3;               // change what was 2 to 3
}

No need for vectors of pointers or dynamic allocation.

Answer 2

Returning &iterator will return the address of the iterator. If you want to return a way of referring to the element return the iterator itself.

Beware that you do not need the vector to be a global in order to return the iterator/pointer, but that operations in the vector can invalidate the iterator. Adding elements to the vector, for example, can move the vector elements to a different position if the new size() is greater than the reserved memory. Deletion of an element before the given item from the vector will make the iterator refer to a different element.

In both cases, depending on the STL implementation it can be hard to debug with just random errors happening each so often.

EDIT after comment: 'yes, I didn't want to return the iterator a) because its const, and b) surely it is only a local, temporary iterator? – Krakkos'

Iterators are not more or less local or temporary than any other variable and they are copyable. You can return it and the compiler will make the copy for you as it will with the pointer.

Now with the const-ness. If the caller wants to perform modifications through the returned element (whether pointer or iterator) then you should use a non-const iterator. (Just remove the 'const_' from the definition of the iterator).

Answer 3

You can use the data function of the vector:

Returns a pointer to the first element in the vector.

If don't want the pointer to the first element, but by index, then you can try, for example:

//the index to the element that you want to receive its pointer:
int i = n; //(n is whatever integer you want)

std::vector<myObject> vec;
myObject* ptr_to_first = vec.data();

//or

std::vector<myObject>* vec;
myObject* ptr_to_first = vec->data();

//then

myObject element = ptr_to_first[i]; //element at index i
myObject* ptr_to_element = &element;

Answer 4

It is not a good idea to return iterators. Iterators become invalid when modifications to the vector (inversion\deletion ) happens. Also, the iterator is a local object created on stack and hence returning the address of the same is not at all safe. I'd suggest you to work with myObject rather than vector iterators.

EDIT: If the object is lightweight then its better you return the object itself. Otheriwise return pointers to myObject stored in the vector.

Answer 5

As long as your vector remains in global scope you can return:

&(*iterator)

I'll caution you that this is pretty dangerous in general. If your vector is ever moved out of global scope and is destructed, any pointers to myObject become invalid. If you're writing these functions as part of a larger project, returning a non-const pointer could lead someone to delete the return value. This will have undefined, and catastrophic, effects on the application.

I'd rewrite this as:

myObject myFunction(const vector<myObject>& objects)
{
    // find the object in question and return a copy
    return *iterator;
}

If you need to modify the returned myObject, store your values as pointers and allocate them on the heap:

myObject* myFunction(const vector<myObject*>& objects)
{
    return *iterator;
}

That way you have control over when they're destructed.

Something like this will break your app:

g_vector<tmpClass> myVector;

    tmpClass t;
    t.i = 30;
    myVector.push_back(t);

    // my function returns a pointer to a value in myVector
    std::auto_ptr<tmpClass> t2(myFunction());

Answer 6

Refer to dirkgently's and anon's answers, you can call the front function instead of begin function, so you do not have to write the *, but only the &.

Code Example:

vector<myObject> vec; //You have a vector of your objects
myObject first = vec.front(); //returns reference, not iterator, to the first object in the vector so you had only to write the data type in the generic of your vector, i.e. myObject, and not all the iterator stuff and the vector again and :: of course
myObject* pointer_to_first_object = &first; //* between & and first is not there anymore, first is already the first object, not iterator to it.

Answer 7

I'm not sure if returning the address of the thing pointed by the iterator is needed. All you need is the pointer itself. You will see STL's iterator class itself implementing the use of _Ptr for this purpose. So, just do:

return iterator._Ptr;

Answer 8

Say, you have the following:

std::vector<myObject>::const_iterator first = vObj.begin();

Then the first object in the vector is: *first. To get the address, use: &(*first).

However, in keeping with the STL design, I'd suggest return an iterator instead if you plan to pass it around later on to STL algorithms.

Answer 9

You are storing the copies of the myObject in the vector. So I believe the copying the instance of myObject is not a costly operation. Then I think the safest would be return a copy of the myObject from your function.