C / C++ / MFC

char achData[MAX_VALUE_NAME];

TCHAR achData[MAX_VALUE_NAME];

Robot* myRobot = new Robot;
RobotSpeak(*myRobot);

#include <iostream>
class Robot{
   public: void Speak() const {std::cout << "Hello\n";} // Use 'const' because the method doesn't alter the Robot instance
};

void RobotSpeak(Robot const & robot) // use a const reference to Robot to indicate the function doesn't modify robot
{
   robot.Speak();
}

int main()
{
   Robot* myRobot = new Robot;
   RobotSpeak(*myRobot);
   return 0;
}

Tom Moore wrote:

Where as if you did such as RobotSpeak(const Robot*& const robot). You could delete the object in the procedure, and if the calling program tried to do any thing to object, it would fail and leak memory or worse.

void RobotSpeak(const Robot& robot)
{
   Robot* pRobot = const_cast<Robot*>(&robot);
   delete pRobot;
}

void RobotSpeak( const Robot & robot);

class Robot
{
  public:
  void Speak() const 
  {
    std::cout << "Hello\n";
  }
};

Tim Craig wrote:

I really don't see the point in the standalone RobotSpeak function set. If you have an instance of Robot, say robot, why not just do:

robot.Speak();

And if you have different types of robots saying different things, make Speak virtual and operate through base classes.