auto
and auto &&
cover most of the cases:
-
Use
auto
when you need a local copy. This will never produce a reference. The copy (or move) constructor must exist, but it might not get called, due to the copy elision optimization. -
Use
auto &&
when you don't care if the object is local or not. Technically, this will always produce a reference, but if the initializer is a temporary (e.g., the function returns by value), it will behave essentially like your own local object.Also,
auto &&
doesn't guarantee that the object will be modifiable, either. Given aconst
object or reference, it will deduceconst
. However, modifiability is often assumed, given the specific context.
auto &
and auto const &
are a little more specific:
-
auto &
guarantees that you are sharing the variable with something else. It is always a reference and never to a temporary. -
auto const &
is likeauto &&
, but provides read-only access.
What about for primitive/non-primitive types?
There is no difference.
Does this also apply to range based for loops?
Yes. Applying the above principles,
- Use
auto &&
for the ability to modify and discard values of the sequence within the loop. (That is, unless the container provides a read-only view, such asstd::initializer_list
, in which case it will be effectively anauto const &
.) - Use
auto &
to modify the values of the sequence in a meaningful way. - Use
auto const &
for read-only access. - Use
auto
to work with (modifiable) copies.
You also mention auto const
with no reference. This works, but it's not very commonly used because there is seldom an advantage to read-only access to something that you already own.
Reference
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29859796/c-auto-vs-auto