class foo
{
public:
struct bar
{
bar() {}
int bar_var;
};
operator std::vector<bar>() {
return m_list;
}
private:
std::vector<bar> m_list;
int foo_var;
};
Here defined a class foo, what is the semantic "operator std:vector<bar>()" mean here? I don't think it is an overloaded function call operator.
Compile with the above code works OK
what is the semantic "operator std:vector()" mean here?
It denotes a conversion operator that allows you to use a foo object where a std::vector<bar> is expected. A conversion operator is a special kind of member function that converts a value of a class type to a value of some other type.
For example, say we have a function called func that takes a std::vector<foo::bar> as its only parameter. Now,
you can even call this function by passing a foo object instead of passing a std::vector<foo::bar> as shown below:
//--------vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv----------> expects std::vector<foo::bar>
void func(std::vector<foo::bar> m)
{
std::cout<<"func called"<<std::endl;
}
int main()
{
foo fObject;
//-------vvvvvvv---->passing a foo object which implicitly uses the conversion operator
func(fObject);
}
Working demo
In the above demo, func expects a std::vector<foo::bar>. But we're passing fObject which is an object of type foo and so there will be an implicit conversion of fObject to std::vector<foo::bar> using the conversion operator that you provided.
It's a conversion function. In your example, a foo will happily call that function if it's ever used in a context where a std::vector<bar> is expected. A more typical use case might look something like
class MyCustomNumberType {
private:
// Super secret number arithmetic stuff.
public:
operator double() {
// Convert to a double and return here...
}
}
MyCustomNumberType foo = /* more complicated math ... */;
double bar = foo + 1.0;
Related
I have this little piece of code:
template<typename T>
class Test
{
public:
//operator T() const { return toto; }
T toto{ nullptr };
};
void function(int* a) {}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
Test<int*> a;
function(a);
return 0;
}
It doesn't compile unless the line operator T() const { return toto; } is un-commented. This magically works, but I am not sure why (if I un-comment the line).
I do understand that if the line is commented, the type of a when passed to function() is incompatible with the expected type int*. So, of course, the compiler complains ... no problem.
I also understand that the operator returns the actual type of the object, therefore in this particular case the compiler is happy.
I don't understand why the operator is called in this particular case.
Is doing function(a) the same thing as doing function(a()), only the () are implicit?
operator T() const { return toto; } is a user defined conversion operator, it is not operator(). It's used to define that your class is convertible to a different type.
operator() would look like this instead:
void operator()() const { ... }
In your case, you are using int* as T. If you substitute it yourself in the operator, you will see that it becomes operator int*() const { return toto; } which means "my class can be converted to an int* and the result of that conversion is evaluated as return toto;".
The function function() only accepts an int* as its argument. When you provide a Test instance, the call is only legal if there is a way to convert from Test to int*, which is why the operator T is required for the code to compile.
Consider this simple example:
template <class Type>
class smartref {
public:
smartref() : data(new Type) { }
operator Type&(){ return *data; }
private:
Type* data;
};
class person {
public:
void think() { std::cout << "I am thinking"; }
};
int main() {
smartref<person> p;
p.think(); // why does not the compiler try substituting Type&?
}
How do conversion operators work in C++? (i.e) when does the compiler try substituting the type defined after the conversion operator?
Some random situations where conversion functions are used and not used follow.
First, note that conversion functions are never used to convert to the same class type or to a base class type.
Conversion during argument passing
Conversion during argument passing will use the rules for copy initialization. These rules just consider any conversion function, disregarding of whether converting to a reference or not.
struct B { };
struct A {
operator B() { return B(); }
};
void f(B);
int main() { f(A()); } // called!
Argument passing is just one context of copy initialization. Another is the "pure" form using the copy initialization syntax
B b = A(); // called!
Conversion to reference
In the conditional operator, conversion to a reference type is possible, if the type converted to is an lvalue.
struct B { };
struct A {
operator B&() { static B b; return b; }
};
int main() { B b; 0 ? b : A(); } // called!
Another conversion to reference is when you bind a reference, directly
struct B { };
struct A {
operator B&() { static B b; return b; }
};
B &b = A(); // called!
Conversion to function pointers
You may have a conversion function to a function pointer or reference, and when a call is made, then it might be used.
typedef void (*fPtr)(int);
void foo(int a);
struct test {
operator fPtr() { return foo; }
};
int main() {
test t; t(10); // called!
}
This thing can actually become quite useful sometimes.
Conversion to non class types
The implicit conversions that happen always and everywhere can use user defined conversions too. You may define a conversion function that returns a boolean value
struct test {
operator bool() { return true; }
};
int main() {
test t;
if(t) { ... }
}
(The conversion to bool in this case can be made safer by the safe-bool idiom, to forbid conversions to other integer types.) The conversions are triggered anywhere where a built-in operator expects a certain type. Conversions may get into the way, though.
struct test {
void operator[](unsigned int) { }
operator char *() { static char c; return &c; }
};
int main() {
test t; t[0]; // ambiguous
}
// (t).operator[] (unsigned int) : member
// operator[](T *, std::ptrdiff_t) : built-in
The call can be ambiguous, because for the member, the second parameter needs a conversion, and for the built-in operator, the first needs a user defined conversion. The other two parameters match perfectly respectively. The call can be non-ambiguous in some cases (ptrdiff_t needs be different from int then).
Conversion function template
Templates allow some nice things, but better be very cautious about them. The following makes a type convertible to any pointer type (member pointers aren't seen as "pointer types").
struct test {
template<typename T>
operator T*() { return 0; }
};
void *pv = test();
bool *pb = test();
The "." operator is not overloadable in C++. And whenever you say x.y, no conversion will automatically be be performed on x.
Conversions aren't magic. Just because A has a conversion to B and B has a foo method doesn't mean that a.foo() will call B::foo().
The compiler tries to use a conversion in four situations
You explicitly cast a variable to another type
You pass the variable as an argument to a function that expects a different type in that position (operators count as functions here)
You assign the variable to a variable of a different type
You use the variable copy-construct or initialize a variable of a different type
There are three types of conversions, other than those involved with inheritance
Built-in conversions (e.g. int-to-double)
Implicit construction, where class B defines a constructor taking a single argument of type A, and does not mark it with the "explicit" keyword
User-defined conversion operators, where class A defines an operator B (as in your example)
How the compiler decides which type of conversion to use and when (especially when there are multiple choices) is pretty involved, and I'd do a bad job of trying to condense it into an answer on SO. Section 12.3 of the C++ standard discusses implicit construction and user-defined conversion operators.
(There may be some conversion situations or methods that I haven't thought of, so please comment or edit them if you see something missing)
Implicit conversion (whether by conversion operators or non-explicit constructors) occurs when passing parameters to functions (including overloaded and default operators for classes). In addition to this, there are some implicit conversions performed on arithmetic types (so adding a char and a long results in the addition of two longs, with a long result).
Implicit conversion does not apply to the object on which a member function call is made: for the purposes of implicit conversion, "this" is not a function parameter.
The compiler will attempt one(!) user-defined cast (implicit ctor or cast operator) if you try to use an object (reference) of type T where U is required.
The . operator, however, will always try to access a member of the object (reference) on its left side. That's just the way it's defined. If you want something more fancy, that's what operator->() can be overloaded for.
You should do
((person)p).think();
The compiler doesn't have the information for automatically casting to person, so you need explicit casting.
If you would use something like
person pers = p;
Then the compiler has information for implicit casting to person.
You can have "casting" through constructors:
class A
{
public:
A( int );
};
A a = 10; // Looks like a cast from int to A
These are some brief examples. Casting (implicit, explicit, etc) needs more to explain. You can find details in serious C++ books (see the questions about C++ books on stack overflow for good titles, like this one).
//Virtual table Fuction(VFT)
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class smartref {
public:
virtual char think() { }//for Late bindig make virtual function if not make virtual function of char think() {} then become early binding and pointer call this class function
smartref() : data(new char) { }
operator char(){ return *data; }
private:
char* data;
};
class person:public smartref
{
public:
char think() { std::cout << "I am thinking"; }
};
int main() {
smartref *p;//make pointer of class
person o1;//make object of class
p=&o1;//store object address in pointer
p->think(); // Late Binding in class person
return 0;
}
In the class below,
Why would you make the operators explicit. I thought that explicit was to prevent implicit calling of constructors?
class Content
{
public:
virtual ~Content() = 0;
virtual explicit operator float&();
virtual explicit operator long long&();
virtual explicit operator std::string&()
}
I thought that explicit was to prevent implicit calling of
constructors?
Since C++11 it also applies to user-defined conversions (a.k.a. the cast operator).
Why would you make the operators explicit
Used in this context, the explicit keyword makes the conversion eligible only for direct-initialization and explicit conversions. See here under [class.conv.fct¶2]:
A conversion function may be explicit ([dcl.fct.spec]), in which case
it is only considered as a user-defined conversion for
direct-initialization ([dcl.init]). Otherwise, user-defined
conversions are not restricted to use in assignments and
initializations.
This aids you in making sure the compiler doesn't try the conversion against your intention, so that you have to explicitly cast it yourself, leaving less room for error. Example:
struct Foo
{
explicit operator int() {return 0;}
operator int*() {return nullptr;}
};
int main()
{
Foo foo;
//int xi = foo; // Error, conversion must be explicit
int i = static_cast<int>(foo); // OK, conversion is explicit
int* i_ptr = foo; // OK, implicit conversion to `int*` is allowed
int i_direct(foo); // OK, direct initialization allowed
int* i_ptr_direct(foo); // OK, direct initialization after implicit conversion
return 0;
}
It can also help resolve ambiguity in cases where multiple conversion options apply, leaving the compiler without a criteria for deciding which one to choose:
struct Bar
{
operator int() {return 1;}
operator char() {return '1';}
};
int main()
{
Bar bar;
//double d = bar; // Error, implicit conversion is ambiguous
return 0;
}
Add explicit:
struct Bar
{
operator int() {return 1;}
explicit operator char() {return '1';}
};
int main()
{
Bar bar;
double d = bar; // OK, implicit conversion to `int` is the only option
return 0;
}
Consider the following:
struct Content
{
operator float() { return 42.f; }
friend Content operator+(Content& lhs, float) { return lhs; }
};
int main()
{
Content c{};
c + 0; // error: ambiguous overload for 'operator+'
}
Here, the compiler cannot choose between operator+(Content&, float) and operator+(float, int). Making the float operator explicit resolves this ambiguity*:
c + 0; // operator+(Content&, float)
or
static_cast<float>(c) + 0; // operator+(float, int)
*) provided it makes sense to prefer one over the other.
The other answers cover how it works, but I think you should be told why it was added to C++.
A smart pointer usually has a conversion to bool so you can do this:
std::shared_ptr<int> foo;
if (foo) {
*foo = 7;
}
where if(foo) converts foo to bool. Unfortunately:
int x = foo+2;
converts foo to bool, then to int, then adds 2. This is almost always a bug. This is permitted because while only one user defined conversion is done, a user defined conversion followed by a built in conversion can silently occur.
To fix this programmers would do crazy things like add:
struct secret {
void unused();
};
struct smart_ptr {
using secret_mem_ptr = void(secret::*)();
operator secret_mem_ptr() const { return 0; }
};
and secret_mem_ptr is a secret pointer to member. A pointer to member has a built in conversion to bool, so:
smart_ptr ptr;
if (!ptr) {
}
"works" -- ptr is convert to secret_mem_ptr, which then is convered to bool, which is then used to decide which branch to take.
This was more than a bit of a hack.
They added explicit on conversion operators to solve this exact problem.
Now:
struct smart_ptr {
explicit operator bool() const { return true; }
};
doesn't permit:
smart_ptr ptr;
int x = 3 + ptr;
but it does permit:
if (ptr) {
}
because the rules were hand-crafted to support exactly that use case. It also doesn't permit:
bool test() {
smart_ptr ptr;
return ptr;
}
here, you have to type:
bool test() {
smart_ptr ptr;
return (bool)ptr;
}
where you explicitly convert ptr to bool.
(I am usually really against C-style casts; I make an exception in the case of (bool)).
You would use it if you wanted a Content object never to be implicitly converted to (say) a float. This could happen in the following way:
void f( float f );
....
Content c;
f( c ); // conversion from Content to float
Without the explicit qualifier, the conversion happens implicitly; with it, you get a compilation error.
Silent, implicit conversions can be the source of a lot of confusion and/or bugs, so it's generally better to make the operators explicit , or probably better yet to provide named functions, such as ToFloat, which tell the reader exactly what is going on.
Consider this simple example:
template <class Type>
class smartref {
public:
smartref() : data(new Type) { }
operator Type&(){ return *data; }
private:
Type* data;
};
class person {
public:
void think() { std::cout << "I am thinking"; }
};
int main() {
smartref<person> p;
p.think(); // why does not the compiler try substituting Type&?
}
How do conversion operators work in C++? (i.e) when does the compiler try substituting the type defined after the conversion operator?
Some random situations where conversion functions are used and not used follow.
First, note that conversion functions are never used to convert to the same class type or to a base class type.
Conversion during argument passing
Conversion during argument passing will use the rules for copy initialization. These rules just consider any conversion function, disregarding of whether converting to a reference or not.
struct B { };
struct A {
operator B() { return B(); }
};
void f(B);
int main() { f(A()); } // called!
Argument passing is just one context of copy initialization. Another is the "pure" form using the copy initialization syntax
B b = A(); // called!
Conversion to reference
In the conditional operator, conversion to a reference type is possible, if the type converted to is an lvalue.
struct B { };
struct A {
operator B&() { static B b; return b; }
};
int main() { B b; 0 ? b : A(); } // called!
Another conversion to reference is when you bind a reference, directly
struct B { };
struct A {
operator B&() { static B b; return b; }
};
B &b = A(); // called!
Conversion to function pointers
You may have a conversion function to a function pointer or reference, and when a call is made, then it might be used.
typedef void (*fPtr)(int);
void foo(int a);
struct test {
operator fPtr() { return foo; }
};
int main() {
test t; t(10); // called!
}
This thing can actually become quite useful sometimes.
Conversion to non class types
The implicit conversions that happen always and everywhere can use user defined conversions too. You may define a conversion function that returns a boolean value
struct test {
operator bool() { return true; }
};
int main() {
test t;
if(t) { ... }
}
(The conversion to bool in this case can be made safer by the safe-bool idiom, to forbid conversions to other integer types.) The conversions are triggered anywhere where a built-in operator expects a certain type. Conversions may get into the way, though.
struct test {
void operator[](unsigned int) { }
operator char *() { static char c; return &c; }
};
int main() {
test t; t[0]; // ambiguous
}
// (t).operator[] (unsigned int) : member
// operator[](T *, std::ptrdiff_t) : built-in
The call can be ambiguous, because for the member, the second parameter needs a conversion, and for the built-in operator, the first needs a user defined conversion. The other two parameters match perfectly respectively. The call can be non-ambiguous in some cases (ptrdiff_t needs be different from int then).
Conversion function template
Templates allow some nice things, but better be very cautious about them. The following makes a type convertible to any pointer type (member pointers aren't seen as "pointer types").
struct test {
template<typename T>
operator T*() { return 0; }
};
void *pv = test();
bool *pb = test();
The "." operator is not overloadable in C++. And whenever you say x.y, no conversion will automatically be be performed on x.
Conversions aren't magic. Just because A has a conversion to B and B has a foo method doesn't mean that a.foo() will call B::foo().
The compiler tries to use a conversion in four situations
You explicitly cast a variable to another type
You pass the variable as an argument to a function that expects a different type in that position (operators count as functions here)
You assign the variable to a variable of a different type
You use the variable copy-construct or initialize a variable of a different type
There are three types of conversions, other than those involved with inheritance
Built-in conversions (e.g. int-to-double)
Implicit construction, where class B defines a constructor taking a single argument of type A, and does not mark it with the "explicit" keyword
User-defined conversion operators, where class A defines an operator B (as in your example)
How the compiler decides which type of conversion to use and when (especially when there are multiple choices) is pretty involved, and I'd do a bad job of trying to condense it into an answer on SO. Section 12.3 of the C++ standard discusses implicit construction and user-defined conversion operators.
(There may be some conversion situations or methods that I haven't thought of, so please comment or edit them if you see something missing)
Implicit conversion (whether by conversion operators or non-explicit constructors) occurs when passing parameters to functions (including overloaded and default operators for classes). In addition to this, there are some implicit conversions performed on arithmetic types (so adding a char and a long results in the addition of two longs, with a long result).
Implicit conversion does not apply to the object on which a member function call is made: for the purposes of implicit conversion, "this" is not a function parameter.
The compiler will attempt one(!) user-defined cast (implicit ctor or cast operator) if you try to use an object (reference) of type T where U is required.
The . operator, however, will always try to access a member of the object (reference) on its left side. That's just the way it's defined. If you want something more fancy, that's what operator->() can be overloaded for.
You should do
((person)p).think();
The compiler doesn't have the information for automatically casting to person, so you need explicit casting.
If you would use something like
person pers = p;
Then the compiler has information for implicit casting to person.
You can have "casting" through constructors:
class A
{
public:
A( int );
};
A a = 10; // Looks like a cast from int to A
These are some brief examples. Casting (implicit, explicit, etc) needs more to explain. You can find details in serious C++ books (see the questions about C++ books on stack overflow for good titles, like this one).
//Virtual table Fuction(VFT)
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class smartref {
public:
virtual char think() { }//for Late bindig make virtual function if not make virtual function of char think() {} then become early binding and pointer call this class function
smartref() : data(new char) { }
operator char(){ return *data; }
private:
char* data;
};
class person:public smartref
{
public:
char think() { std::cout << "I am thinking"; }
};
int main() {
smartref *p;//make pointer of class
person o1;//make object of class
p=&o1;//store object address in pointer
p->think(); // Late Binding in class person
return 0;
}
Consider a type bar which has user-defined conversion operators to references of type bar:
struct bar
{
operator bar & ();
operator const bar & () const;
};
When would these conversions be applied? Moreover, what does it imply if these operators were deleted? Is there any interesting use of either feature?
The following program does not appear to apply either conversion:
#include <iostream>
struct bar
{
operator bar & ()
{
std::cout << "operator bar &()" << std::endl;
return *this;
}
operator const bar & () const
{
std::cout << "operator const bar &() const" << std::endl;
return *this;
}
};
void foo(bar x)
{
}
int main()
{
bar x;
bar y = x; // copy, no conversion
y = x; // assignment, no conversion
foo(x); // copy, no conversion
y = (bar&)x; // no output
y = (const bar&)x; // no output
return 0;
}
C++11 §12.3.2
A conversion function is never used to convert a (possibly cv-qualified) object to the (possibly cv-qualified) same object type (or a reference to it), to a (possibly cv-qualified) base class of that type (or a reference to it), or to (possibly cv-qualified) void
The feature that you are allowed to define a conversion function from a type to itself, but that the conversion function is never used, can be a useful feature in template programming, where two type parameters may or may not refer to the same type, depending on the instantiation. Some code of mine relies on this feature. It saves having to provide specializations for cases where two or more of the type parameters end up referring to the same type.
I can't see any reason why it would ever be called. The conversion functions are called to... convert. If you already have the right type, there is absolutely no reason to add a conversion operation before the copy.
Just for the record. I managed to create this kind of structure in a bigger software project, blindly trusted the compiler warning and removed the "never used method". Well, I guess I found a scenario where it is actually called. The compiler seems to miss the base class.
#include <iostream>
struct D;
struct B
{
virtual operator D& ()
{
throw "foo";
}
};
struct D : public B
{
virtual operator D& ()
{
std::cout << "bar" << std::endl;
return *this;
}
};
int main()
{
B* b = new D();
D& d = *b;
return 0;
}