Develop Reference

How the arr[] is sorted in a void method when it has no return value? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Is Java "pass-by-reference" or "pass-by-value"?
(93 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
Arrays are not a primitive type in Java, but they are not objects either, so are they passed by value or by reference? Does it depend on what the array contains, for example references or a primitive type?

Everything in Java is passed by value. In case of an array (which is nothing but an Object), the array reference is passed by value (just like an object reference is passed by value).
When you pass an array to other method, actually the reference to that array is copied.
Any changes in the content of array through that reference will affect the original array.
But changing the reference to point to a new array will not change the existing reference in original method.
See this post: Is Java "pass-by-reference" or "pass-by-value"?
See this working example:
public static void changeContent(int[] arr) {
// If we change the content of arr.
arr[0] = 10; // Will change the content of array in main()
}
public static void changeRef(int[] arr) {
// If we change the reference
arr = new int[2]; // Will not change the array in main()
arr[0] = 15;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int [] arr = new int[2];
arr[0] = 4;
arr[1] = 5;
changeContent(arr);
System.out.println(arr[0]); // Will print 10..
changeRef(arr);
System.out.println(arr[0]); // Will still print 10..
// Change the reference doesn't reflect change here..
}

Your question is based on a false premise.
Arrays are not a primitive type in Java, but they are not objects either ... "
In fact, all arrays in Java are objects1. Every Java array type has java.lang.Object as its supertype, and inherits the implementation of all methods in the Object API.
... so are they passed by value or by reference? Does it depend on what the array contains, for example references or a primitive type?
Short answers: 1) pass by value, and 2) it makes no difference.
Longer answer:
Like all Java objects, arrays are passed by value ... but the value is the reference to the array. So, when you assign something to a cell of the array in the called method, you will be assigning to the same array object that the caller sees.
This is NOT pass-by-reference. Real pass-by-reference involves passing the address of a variable. With real pass-by-reference, the called method can assign to its local variable, and this causes the variable in the caller to be updated.
But not in Java. In Java, the called method can update the contents of the array, and it can update its copy of the array reference, but it can't update the variable in the caller that holds the caller's array reference. Hence ... what Java is providing is NOT pass-by-reference.
Here are some links that explain the difference between pass-by-reference and pass-by-value. If you don't understand my explanations above, or if you feel inclined to disagree with the terminology, you should read them.
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/comphelp/v8v101/topic/com.ibm.xlcpp8a.doc/language/ref/cplr233.htm
http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~myers/c++/notes/references.html
Related SO question:
Is Java "pass-by-reference" or "pass-by-value"?
Historical background:
The phrase "pass-by-reference" was originally "call-by-reference", and it was used to distinguish the argument passing semantics of FORTRAN (call-by-reference) from those of ALGOL-60 (call-by-value and call-by-name).
In call-by-value, the argument expression is evaluated to a value, and that value is copied to the called method.
In call-by-reference, the argument expression is partially evaluated to an "lvalue" (i.e. the address of a variable or array element) that is passed to the calling method. The calling method can then directly read and update the variable / element.
In call-by-name, the actual argument expression is passed to the calling method (!!) which can evaluate it multiple times (!!!). This was complicated to implement, and could be used (abused) to write code that was very difficult to understand. Call-by-name was only ever used in Algol-60 (thankfully!).
UPDATE
Actually, Algol-60's call-by-name is similar to passing lambda expressions as parameters. The wrinkle is that these not-exactly-lambda-expressions (they were referred to as "thunks" at the implementation level) can indirectly modify the state of variables that are in scope in the calling procedure / function. That is part of what made them so hard to understand. (See the Wikipedia page on Jensen's Device for example.)
1. Nothing in the linked Q&A (Arrays in Java and how they are stored in memory) either states or implies that arrays are not objects.

Arrays are in fact objects, so a reference is passed (the reference itself is passed by value, confused yet?). Quick example:
// assuming you allocated the list
public void addItem(Integer[] list, int item) {
list[1] = item;
}
You will see the changes to the list from the calling code. However you can't change the reference itself, since it's passed by value:
// assuming you allocated the list
public void changeArray(Integer[] list) {
list = null;
}
If you pass a non-null list, it won't be null by the time the method returns.

No that is wrong. Arrays are special objects in Java. So it is like passing other objects where you pass the value of the reference, but not the reference itself. Meaning, changing the reference of an array in the called routine will not be reflected in the calling routine.

Everything in Java is passed by value .
In the case of the array the reference is copied into a new reference, but remember that everything in Java is passed by value .
Take a look at this interesting article for further information ...

The definitive discussion of arrays is at http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se5.0/html/arrays.html#27803 . This makes clear that Java arrays are objects. The class of these objects is defined in 10.8.
Section 8.4.1 of the language spec, http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se5.0/html/classes.html#40420 , describe how arguments are passed to methods. Since Java syntax is derived from C and C++, the behavior is similar. Primitive types are passed by value, as with C. When an object is passed, an object reference (pointer) is passed by value, mirroring the C syntax of passing a pointer by value. See 4.3.1, http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se5.0/html/typesValues.html#4.3 ,
In practical terms, this means that modifying the contents of an array within a method is reflected in the array object in the calling scope, but reassigning a new value to the reference within the method has no effect on the reference in the calling scope, which is exactly the behavior you would expect of a pointer to a struct in C or an object in C++.
At least part of the confusion in terminology stems from the history of high level languages prior to the common use of C. In prior, popular, high level languages, directly referencing memory by address was something to be avoided to the extent possible, and it was considered the job of the language to provide a layer of abstraction. This made it necessary for the language to explicitly support a mechanism for returning values from subroutines (not necessarily functions). This mechanism is what is formally meant when referring to 'pass by reference'.
When C was introduced, it came with a stripped down notion of procedure calling, where all arguments are input-only, and the only value returned to the caller is a function result. However, the purpose of passing references could be achieved through the explicit and broad use of pointers. Since it serves the same purpose, the practice of passing a pointer as a reference to a value is often colloquially referred to a passing by reference. If the semantics of a routine call for a parameter to be passed by reference, the syntax of C requires the programmer to explicitly pass a pointer. Passing a pointer by value is the design pattern for implementing pass by reference semantics in C.
Since it can often seem like the sole purpose of raw pointers in C is to create crashing bugs, subsequent developments, especially Java, have sought to return to safer means to pass parameters. However, the dominance of C made it incumbent on the developers to mimic the familiar style of C coding. The result is references that are passed similarly to pointers, but are implemented with more protections to make them safer. An alternative would have been the rich syntax of a language like Ada, but this would have presented the appearance of an unwelcome learning curve, and lessened the likely adoption of Java.
In short, the design of parameter passing for objects, including arrays, in Java,is esentially to serve the semantic intent of pass by reference, but is imlemented with the syntax of passing a reference by value.

Kind of a trick realty... Even references are passed by value in Java, hence a change to the reference itself being scoped at the called function level. The compiler and/or JVM will often turn a value type into a reference.

Overload a C++ assignment operator to behave like Java

In Java, when you assign one object to another, the original object isn't copied, it merely clones the reference. So, for example, I'd like it to behave like this Java code:
SomeClass x = new SomeClass();
SomeClass y;
y = x; // x is not copied, y is simply a (Java) reference to x
What I'd like to do is create a C++ class that behaves the same way. The obvious choice is to overload the assignment operator, like so:
SomeClass& operator=(const SomeClass& rhs)
{
this = &rhs;
return *this;
}
Unfortunately, assigning a new location to this is not allowed; the above code won't even compile.
Does anyone know of any other way to do this?
Also, before you say anything: yes, I know this is absolutely the wrong way to implement an assignment operator. Please, indulge me anyway.
EDIT 2: To clarify, here is the C++ code that should behave as in Java:
SomeClass x = SomeClass(); // Created on stack
SomeClass y; // In C++, same as above; NOT reference or pointer
y = x; // x is not copied, y becomes a (C++) reference to x;
// original y is destroyed when stack unwinds
I DO NOT want to use pointers at all.
EDIT: I'm doing this to see if I can change the base address of a C++ object that was passed by reference to a function. If I simply assign another object to the reference variable, it automatically makes a shallow copy, and I don't want that. I want the reference parameter to reference a completely different object.
I'm doing this to see how references are implemented by the compiler. If references are syntactic sugar for dereferenced pointers, then outside the function, the base address of the argument object would NOT change. If they are aliases in the symbol table (as in PHP), then it WILL change. (So any solution using pointers is out, since that's my "control" for the test.)
Hope that makes sense.

This isn't possible. The languages just work fundamentally differently.
SomeClass x in Java is some kind of pointer or reference to a SomeClass object. It's an indirection, so that why you can have multiple ones refering to the same object.
SomeClass x in C++ literally is the object. Thus SomeClass y is literally an entirely different object. There's no indirection. And so there's no way to make one reference the other.
C++ provides pointers (SomeClass* x) and references (SomeClass& x) to take care of the times when indirection is needed. Perhaps those are what you actually want to use, although it depends on why you asked this question in the first place.
Responding to the edit:
No, you can't change the address of an object. An instance of an object will live in exactly one place for the duration of its lifetime, until it is destroyed/deallocated.

I don't think this is okay, because even you assign this to another pointer, then the current object pointed by this will be memory leaked. Java has memory collection, but C++ not.
This is a good question, through. And this is possible.
A& operator=(const A& rhs)
{
A * cthis = const_cast<A*>(this);
cthis = const_cast<A*>(&rhs);
return *cthis;
}
Edit: It is possible to change "this pointer" inside a member function. But changing "this pointer" doesn't accomplish much.

It can be done. but, with pointer indirection.
Lets say you have a class someClass
class someClass
{
someClass *someClsPtr;
public:
someClass(someClass *someClsPtrTemp):someClsPtr(someClsPtrTemp)
{
}
someClass* operator=(someClass *someClsPtrTemp)
{
this->someClsPtr = someClsPtrTemp->someClsPtr;
return this;
}
//now over load operator -> and operator *. Thats it.
};

Function didn't change the value - JAVA 6 SE

I can't understand why the overloaded function 'increase' does not change Integer but does change Point.
The propuse of 'Integer' class is to wrap int so it will be a reference Type.
import java.awt.Point;
public class test2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
///1
Integer i = new Integer(0);
increase(i);
System.out.println(i);
///2
Point p = new Point(0,0);
increase(p);
System.out.println(p);
}
public static void increase(Integer i){
i = 1;
}
public static void increase(Point p){
p.setLocation(1, 1);
}
}
the output is :
0
java.awt.Point[x=1,y=1]
Also, is their a simple way to pass a variable to a function by reference in Java?

Integer class is an immutable class, that means its content can't be changed after it's created.
Also, Java is pass-by-value so the variable i is passed by value, and the fact that it changes inside the function has no effect on the caller.
Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object for more information on immutable objects.

The simple answer is that Java uses pass by value, not pass by reference.
In the Point case, the method is changing a field of the point object whose reference was passed into the method.
In the Integer case, the method is simply assigning a new value to the local variable i. This does not update the variable i in the calling method, because Java uses pass by reference.
The other issue is that Integer has no setValue methods because it is immutable. If you want to do the equivalent of what the Point version of the method is doing, you will have to define an IntegerHolder class that has both a getter and a setter, together with methods such as increase, that your application needs. (Alternatively, find such a class in a 3rd party library.)

Integer objects are immutable, i.e. you can't change them. If you could, the syntax would be like
i.setValue(1);
If you want to pass a non-object by reference, you can either wrap it in an array of length 1 or (better) create a trivial wrapper. However, there is little reason to do so - don't port your code from C 1:1. Usually, you should have a semantically loaded object, like an Account on which you can call the increase and decrease (or maybe just setBalance) methods.

In this function:
public static void increase(Integer i){
i = 1;
}
autoboxing makes this equivalent to:
public static void increase(Integer i){
i = new Integer(1);
}
i.e. it changes the reference that i contains, not the value that it contains. The Integer object is itself immutable, there's actually no way to change the value of one after it has been created.
Since that reference is a local variable, any changes to it will not affect the variable that was passed in.

When you write i = 1, you are changing the i parameter to point to a new boxed Integer instance.
The original Integer instance that you passed to the function is not—and cannot be—changed—Integers are immutable

Answer here: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/2000-06/01-qa-0602-immutable.html
This reference could be useful: http://javadude.com/articles/passbyvalue.htm

If you wanted the two methods to be equivalent, the second one would look like this:
public static void increase(Point p){
p = new Point(1, 1);
}
And then you would see that it outputs the original point here, too.
There is no pass a variable to a function by reference in Java.
You can simulate it by passing an object which contains the variable (like you did in your increase(Point) method) - you'll have to be sure to assign to the variable, though, not to the object containing the variable.
As said before, there are several "mutable wrappers" around (for example org.omg.CORBA.IntHolder and java.util.concurrent.AtomicInteger in the standard API), but it is not difficult to create your own, and in most cases it would be better to use a sensible "Business object" like an "Account" instead.

How to pass mutable objects by value to java

Is there any way that I can pass mutable Objects by value to a function in java?
What I actually want is to pass an object to a method, do some operations on it (change it) and again call that method with that old object only(not the changed value).
here is some sample:
{ MyObj obj = new MyObj(); obj.setName("name");
append(obj);
System.out.println(obj.name);
prepend(obj);
System.out.println(obj.name);
}
void append(MyObj obj){ obj.name+="1"; }
void prepend(MyObj obj){ String a = "1"; obj.name=a+obj.name; }
At the end of this code, I want output as:
name1
1name

Objects themselves aren't passed at all in Java. Ever.
But everything is passed by value - where the only things that can be passed are primitive values and references.
It's not quite clear what you're trying to do - is the idea that you'd like to have a method with (say) a StringBuilder parameter, but without any changes made to the object from within the method being visible to the caller? If so, you basically need to clone the object yourself.

Unfortunately, no. Java never passes Objects by value, it passes the reference of the object by value.
Explanation from here:
What's really happening is that
objects are always held by reference
in java -- never by value -- and the
references are, indeed, being passed
by value.

Why do you need to do this? If you don't change the object, then it doesn't matter. If you do change the object, and don't want to affect the caller's object, then just make a copy locally. But I would guess that at least 90% of the time people think they need to do that, they really don't.
Show some code. What are you really trying to do?

AFAIK immutable/mutable is not related with passing by value/reference. Strings are passed by reference, not value. What makes string immutable is design of string class itself.
Perhaps you may explain a bit more what you looking for.

Java is NEVER pass-by-reference, right?...right? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is Java “pass-by-reference”?
I found an unusual Java method today:
private void addShortenedName(ArrayList<String> voiceSetList, String vsName)
{
if (null == vsName)
vsName = "";
else
vsName = vsName.trim();
String shortenedVoiceSetName = vsName.substring(0, Math.min(8, vsName.length()));
//SCR10638 - Prevent export of empty rows.
if (shortenedVoiceSetName.length() > 0)
{
if (!voiceSetList.contains("#" + shortenedVoiceSetName))
voiceSetList.add("#" + shortenedVoiceSetName);
}
}
According to everything I've read about Java's behavior for passing variables, complex objects or not, this code should do exactly nothing. So um...am I missing something here? Is there some subtlety that was lost on me, or does this code belong on thedailywtf?

As Rytmis said, Java passes references by value. What this means is that you can legitimately call mutating methods on the parameters of a method, but you cannot reassign them and expect the value to propagate.
Example:
private void goodChangeDog(Dog dog) {
dog.setColor(Color.BLACK); // works as expected!
}
private void badChangeDog(Dog dog) {
dog = new StBernard(); // compiles, but has no effect outside the method
}
Edit: What this means in this case is that although voiceSetList might change as a result of this method (it could have a new element added to it), the changes to vsName will not be visible outside of the method. To prevent confusion, I often mark my method parameters final, which keeps them from being reassigned (accidentally or not) inside the method. This would keep the second example from compiling at all.

Java passes references by value, so you get a copy of the reference, but the referenced object is the same. Hence this method does modify the input list.

The references themselves are passed by value.
From Java How to Program, 4th Edition by Deitel & Deitel: (pg. 329)
Unlike other languages, Java does not allow the programmer to choose whether to pass
each argument by value or by reference. Primitive data type variables are always passed
by value. Objects are not passed to methods; rather, references to objects are passed to
methods. The references themselves are passed by value—a copy of a reference is passed
to a method. When a method receives a reference to an object, the method can manipulate
the object directly.
Used this book when learning Java in college. Brilliant reference.
Here's a good article explaining it.
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/2000-05/03-qa-0526-pass.html

Well, it can manipulate the ArrayList - which is an object... if you are passing an object reference around (even passed by value), changes to that object will be reflected to the caller. Is that the question?

I think you are confused because vsName is modified. But in this context, it is just a local variable, at the exact same level as shortenedVoiceSetName.

It's not clear to me what the exact question within the code is. Java is pass-by-value, but arrays are pass-by-reference as they pass no object but only pointers! Arrays consist of pointers, not real objects. This makes them very fast, but also makes them dangerous to handle. To solve this, you need to clone them to get a copy, and even then it will only clone the first dimension of the array.
For more details see my answer here: In Java, what is a shallow copy? (also see my other answers)
By the way, there are some advantages as arrays are only pointers: you can (ab)use them as synchronized objects!