Returning a pointer to a vector element in c++

Return the address of the thing pointed to by the iterator:

&(*iterator)

Edit: To clear up some confusion:

vector <int> vec;          // a global vector of ints

void f() {
   vec.push_back( 1 );    // add to the global vector
   vector <int>::iterator it = vec.begin();
   * it = 2;              // change what was 1 to 2
   int * p = &(*it);      // get pointer to first element
   * p = 3;               // change what was 2 to 3
}

No need for vectors of pointers or dynamic allocation.

Returning &iterator will return the address of the iterator. If you want to return a way of referring to the element return the iterator itself.

Beware that you do not need the vector to be a global in order to return the iterator/pointer, but that operations in the vector can invalidate the iterator. Adding elements to the vector, for example, can move the vector elements to a different position if the new size() is greater than the reserved memory. Deletion of an element before the given item from the vector will make the iterator refer to a different element.

In both cases, depending on the STL implementation it can be hard to debug with just random errors happening each so often.

EDIT after comment: 'yes, I didn't want to return the iterator a) because its const, and b) surely it is only a local, temporary iterator? – Krakkos'

Iterators are not more or less local or temporary than any other variable and they are copyable. You can return it and the compiler will make the copy for you as it will with the pointer.

Now with the const-ness. If the caller wants to perform modifications through the returned element (whether pointer or iterator) then you should use a non-const iterator. (Just remove the 'const_' from the definition of the iterator).

It is not a good idea to return iterators. Iterators become invalid when modifications to the vector (inversion\deletion ) happens. Also, the iterator is a local object created on stack and hence returning the address of the same is not at all safe. I'd suggest you to work with myObject rather than vector iterators.

EDIT: If the object is lightweight then its better you return the object itself. Otheriwise return pointers to myObject stored in the vector.

As long as your vector remains in global scope you can return:

&(*iterator)

I'll caution you that this is pretty dangerous in general. If your vector is ever moved out of global scope and is destructed, any pointers to myObject become invalid. If you're writing these functions as part of a larger project, returning a non-const pointer could lead someone to delete the return value. This will have undefined, and catastrophic, effects on the application.

I'd rewrite this as:

myObject myFunction(const vector<myObject>& objects)
{
    // find the object in question and return a copy
    return *iterator;
}

If you need to modify the returned myObject, store your values as pointers and allocate them on the heap:

myObject* myFunction(const vector<myObject*>& objects)
{
    return *iterator;
}

That way you have control over when they're destructed.

Something like this will break your app:

g_vector<tmpClass> myVector;

    tmpClass t;
    t.i = 30;
    myVector.push_back(t);

    // my function returns a pointer to a value in myVector
    std::auto_ptr<tmpClass> t2(myFunction());

Say, you have the following:

std::vector<myObject>::const_iterator first = vObj.begin();

Then the first object in the vector is: *first. To get the address, use: &(*first).

However, in keeping with the STL design, I'd suggest return an iterator instead if you plan to pass it around later on to STL algorithms.

You are storing the copies of the myObject in the vector. So I believe the copying the instance of myObject is not a costly operation. Then I think the safest would be return a copy of the myObject from your function.