title: Contradicting definition of references
body: <p>I am learning about references in C++. In particular, i have learnt that references are not actual objects. Instead they refer to some other object. That is, reference are just alias for other objects.</p>
  <p>Then i came across <a href="https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/references#overview-refs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> which says:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Important note: Even though a reference is often implemented using an address in the underlying assembly language, please do not think of a reference as a funny looking pointer to an object. <strong>A reference is the object, just with another name</strong>. It is neither a pointer to the object, nor a copy of the object. <strong>It is the object.</strong> There is no C++ syntax that lets you operate on the reference itself separate from the object to which it refers.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>I get that the above quote means that we can't operate on the reference itself separate from the object to which it refers but it still <strong>seems to imply that</strong> &quot;a reference is an object&quot;.</p>
  <p>Also, i have come across the the sentence given below:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>In ISO C++, <strong>a reference is not an object</strong>. As such, it needs not have any memory representation.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>I don't have a link to this 2nd quote but i read it in one of SO's post somewhere.</p>
  <p>My question is that assuming the second quote is also from the standard(which may not be the case), doesn't these 2 quoted statements contradict each other. Or at least the first quote is misleading. Which one is correct.</p>
  <p>My current understanding(by reading books like C++ Primer 5th edition) is that references are an alias for objects. Which leads me to the thinking that they should not take any space in memory.</p>