Yeah, you store a reference in a pointer.

Instead of

Thing &myThing = tempVector;

you want

Thing* myThingPointer = &tempVector;

A pointer stores a memory address. A reference is a memory address. This means myThingPointer will point to whatever is at the memory addres that is tempVector currrently. Becareful: If the vector reconfigures itself, myThingPointer might not point to what you think it is anymore. It will still be pointing at the same address, but the contents of that address won't be the same. It could be anything.

AAAARRGGGHH apparently you just can't store references in a container like this...

Yes, you can, all you need to do is declare that the vector is suppose to store pointers, like this:

std::vector<Thing*>    myVector;
 

Take note of the asterisk. This will store an array of pointers for "Thing" into otherVector. The way you have it set up right now, otherVector is in fact storing an array of "Thing" objects themselves, rather than references to them.

Give reference (or pointer) to object stored on array is usually a bad idea.

In your case your class can be deleted and destroy all the object contained in the array. All the object that have taken reference to there object will have pointer to destroed memory and are likely to crash.

Another problem can araise if you are more object to the original array.

If the array reach it's capacity will reallocate the memory and move all the objects. Again object that have taken the reference will point to dirt memory.

Even if you remove an object from the original array you will have problem.

When you remove an object from a vector the remaining object on the right are shifted to occupy the remaining hole. In this case if you have given a pointer to and objected that is shifted the pointer now will point to the wrong object or to dirt memory.

Your idea will work only if you never touch the array once you give pointer around.

Another aproach is to store pointer.

class someClass
{
private:
  std::vector<Thing*> myVector;

public:
  std::vector<Thing*>& getThings(); //simply returns myVector
}; 

But this case is even worse.. I can give the pointer around but who is the owner of the pointer? Who must delete the object once is used?

class someClass
{
private:
   std::vector<std::auto_ptr<Thing> > myVector;

public:
   std::vector<std::auto_ptr<Thing> >& getThings(); //simply returns myVector
};
 

auto_ptr solve the problem (shared_ptr if you use the new standard). Smart pointer add refcount of object, so, the last that use the object will automatically delete it.

Is still a bad idea tu use standard smart pointer in game development cause they tend to fragment the memory, a better solution is to use boost::intrusive_ptr

http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/libs/smart_ptr/intrusive_ptr.html

That have some requirement on the object but it's fast and cache friendly.|