llvm dev - May 2014 - [LLVMdev] Guidance on using pointers vs. references for function arguments

Hello,

Carrying on this conversation from llvm-commits:
>>>> Would it be reasonable if we name both SwapByteOrder() --
it's
difficult
>>>> to describe their purpose in any other way -- and make the
in-place
>>>> function take a pointer, instead of a reference?
>>>
>>> Pointer is the wrong API: it implies having to check for null.
>>
>> I see that in general, the choice between pointer parameters and
reference
>> parameters can mean one of many things: input vs output, change of
ownership
>> vs no change, validity of NULL, and perhaps more.
>>
>> For example, Google C++ Style Guide mandates: "All parameters
passed by
>> reference must be labeled const. [...] it is a very strong convention
in
>> Google code that input arguments are values or const references while
output
>> arguments are pointers."
(http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/
>> cppguide.xml#Reference_Arguments )
>
> I haven't seen much of that around here.
>
>> I see that LLVM Coding Standards document doesn't touch this
subject at
all.
>> Should we use this opportunity to add to it that in LLVM, the choice
between
>> pointer parameters and reference parameters is defined by whether NULL
is
a
>> valid input?
>
> Not sure that's necessary, but feel free to send a proposal to llvmdev.
What does the community think about such an addition?

==================================================================---
docs/CodingStandards.rst	(revision 208684)
+++ docs/CodingStandards.rst	(working copy)
@@ -837,6 +837,21 @@
     It's okay to put extra implementation methods in a public class itself.
Just
     make them private (or protected) and all is well.
 
+Use References for Non-null Function Arguments
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+Using a pointer for a function argument implies that the function must
treat
+NULL input in a sensible way. Where such check is unpractical (e.g. when
every
+call site is known to pass a non-null input), or when you want to express
it in
+the function signature that nullptr is not a valid input, use a reference
+argument instead.
+
+This is an application of "Use references when you can, and pointers when
you
+have to." maxim from the C++FAQ. Avoid using the pointers vs. references
+distinction to convey other meanings, e.g. to mark the distinction between
+input and output arguments, as may be advised by other style guides.
+
+
 .. _early exits:
 
 Use Early Exits and ``continue`` to Simplify Code
===================================================================