C++ references vs pointers: evaluate two claims Pointer to a reference and reference to a pointer are both valid. When we use a reference, we are referring to its referent (the underlying object).

Introduction / Context:
This question checks nuanced type-formation rules and semantics for references. It asks whether you can form a pointer-to-reference type and whether a reference name denotes the underlying object directly in expressions. Understanding these points helps avoid invalid type declarations and improves API design.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• We use standard C++ type rules.
• References must bind to objects and are not objects themselves.
• A reference can bind to a pointer type (i.e., reference-to-pointer is allowed).

Concept / Approach:

A “pointer to a reference” is ill-formed, because references do not exist as independent objects to which you can point. However, a “reference to a pointer” is valid; for example, int* p; int*& rp = p; binds a reference to a pointer variable. Separately, when you use a reference in an expression, the language automatically treats it as the referred-to object. Hence, statement 2 is true, but statement 1 is false because half of its conjunction (“pointer to a reference”) is invalid.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Compilation check: int& *pp; is rejected; int*& rp = p; is accepted. Using rp in expressions behaves exactly like using p, confirming “refer to the referent.”

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Only 1 — wrong because pointer-to-reference is not a legal type.

Both correct — wrong because claim 1 is half-invalid.

Both incorrect — wrong because claim 2 is valid.

Common Pitfalls:

• Thinking references are first-class objects; they are aliases and cannot be the target of pointers.
• Confusing reference-to-pointer with pointer-to-reference.

Final Answer:

Only 2 is correct.