You are here:

C++/Reference (C++)


Dear Ralph McArdell,

I have 4 seemingly similar questions about reference:

1. Can you return a reference to public data member?
2. Can you return a reference to private data member?
3. Can you return a reference to auto object?
4. Can you return a reference to static object or data member?

I feel so confused about these questions, which I got from a C++ interview Question collection. Can you make them a little bit specific?

Thanks a lot,


The word in all these questions that we should focus on here is 'can'.  C++ does not prevent you doing too many silly things. Thus the answer to all these questions is:

  Yes, we can, the compiler is not going to stop us.

However just because the language allows us to do something does not mean that doing so is a good idea. Hence while the answer to all these questions is: Yes we can, maybe a better question to ask is

   Should we be doing so?

There are two possible reasons why we may not want to: it leads to erroneous code that will likely fail or the code produced will work but there is some failure of design.
The first question's case leads to the question: why bother? You can access the data member directly as it is public. It also leads to the question: Why are the data members public? Class and object data should be considered an implementation detail and so should be private.

The second question's case seems quite reasonable. However it breaks encapsulation as returning a non-const reference to a private data member from a public member function in effect makes the data member public as you can do anything to the data member through the returned reference. If the returned reference were const (and hopefully the member function were also const) then at least users could only access the private data member for reading (at least without resorting to using type casting, such as a const_cast - which hopefully will throw up a red flag to anyone reading the code that something dodgy may be going on).

The third question would be a case in which the code would likely fail when run. This is because auto objects _only_ exist (at maximum) for the duration of a function call to the function in which they are defined. Thus returning a reference to such an object, like returning a pointer to an auto object, leads to a reference to an object that has been destroyed. OK, in some cases you might get away with it - if you assign the returned reference to an object immediately and it has a trivial (do nothing) destructor then maybe the auto object still exists - or at least its memory has not been overwritten yet. But in general returning references or pointers to automatic local object is a no no.

The forth question's case is also interesting. It does not specify the context in which we would be returning a reference to such an object or data member. If the object was at global scope or a class static data member was public then this is a variation on the first question: Why bother? Why are we using global data? Why are (static) data members public? Etc. If returned for an instance member function then why are we returning static data from a class-instance member function? Why is the function not a static member function? If returned from a public static function that referred to a private static data member then we are in a question 2 situation!

However if the function defined a local static object then there is a very good reason we might wish to return a reference to it. As the object is static it will exist from (effectively) the first time the code execution path encounters the object definition until the end of the program, hence returning a reference to it will be safe in that the object referred to will still exist after returning from a function call. Further, because the point of construction (as mentioned above) is well defined whereas the order of construction of global static objects is not defined when they are defined in different translation units (compiled source files), making such objects local static objects can solve problems with fragile global(static) object orders of construction. For a fuller explanation see Scott Meyer's excellent book "Effective C++" "Item 47: Ensure that non-local static objects are initialized before they're used" (I checked the 2nd edition, so other editions may vary slightly in what items are where etc.).

One thing about static data is that it is _not_ thread safe. Because a whole program shares the single instance of each static object, different threads can access the same object at the same time. This is OK if multiple threads are just reading the data, but if one or more threads are reading while another is updating or more than one thread is updating a static object at the same time chaos ensues.  Note that several of the old C library functions, such as strtok, rely on static data internally and thus are not thread safe.

Hope this helps.  


All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Ralph McArdell


I am a software developer with more than 15 years C++ experience and over 25 years experience developing a wide variety of applications for Windows NT/2000/XP, UNIX, Linux and other platforms. I can help with basic to advanced C++, C (although I do not write just-C much if at all these days so maybe ask in the C section about purely C matters), software development and many platform specific and system development problems.


My career started in the mid 1980s working as a batch process operator for the now defunct Inner London Education Authority, working on Prime mini computers. I then moved into the role of Programmer / Analyst, also on the Primes, then into technical support and finally into the micro computing section, using a variety of 16 and 8 bit machines. Following the demise of the ILEA I worked for a small company, now gone, called Hodos. I worked on a part task train simulator using C and the Intel DVI (Digital Video Interactive) - the hardware based predecessor to Indeo. Other projects included a CGI based train simulator (different goals to the first), and various other projects in C and Visual Basic (er, version 1 that is). When Hodos went into receivership I went freelance and finally managed to start working in C++. I initially had contracts working on train simulators (surprise) and multimedia - I worked on many of the Dorling Kindersley CD-ROM titles and wrote the screensaver games for the Wallace and Gromit Cracking Animator CD. My more recent contracts have been more traditionally IT based, working predominately in C++ on MS Windows NT, 2000. XP, Linux and UN*X. These projects have had wide ranging additional skill sets including system analysis and design, databases and SQL in various guises, C#, client server and remoting, cross porting applications between platforms and various client development processes. I have an interest in the development of the C++ core language and libraries and try to keep up with at least some of the papers on the ISO C++ Standard Committee site at


©2016 All rights reserved.