In my code below I have a function which accepts "universal reference" (F&&). The function also has an inner class which accepts an object of F&& in its constructor. Is F&& still a universal reference at that point? I.e. is F still considered to be a deduced type?
In other words, should I use std::forward<F> or std::move in the constructor initialization list?
#include "tbb/task.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <future>
template<class F>
auto Async(F&& f) -> std::future<decltype(f())>
{
typedef decltype(f()) result_type;
struct Task : tbb::task
{
Task(F&& f) : f_(std::forward<F>(f)) {} // is forward correct here?
virtual tbb::task* execute()
{
f_();
return nullptr;
}
std::packaged_task<result_type()> f_;
};
auto task = new (tbb::task::allocate_root()) Task(std::forward<F>(f));
tbb::task::enqueue(*task);
return task->f_.get_future();
}
int main()
{
Async([]{ std::cout << "Hi" << std::endl; }).get();
}
Live demo.
Is F&& still a universal reference at that point? I.e. is F still considered to be a deduced type?
This kind of confusion is why I dislike the term universal reference ... there's no such thing.
I prefer to understand code in terms of lvalue references and rvalue references, and the rules of reference collapsing and template argument deduction.
When the function is called with an lvalue of type L the argument F will be deduced as L&, and by the reference collapsing rules F&& is just L&. In the Task constructor nothing changes, F&& is still L& so the constructor takes an lvalue reference that is bound to the lvalue passed to Async, and so you don't want to move it, and forward is appropriate because that preserves the value category, forwarding the lvalue as an lvalue. (Moving from the lvalue would surprise the caller of Async, who would not be expecting an lvalue to get silently moved.)
When the function is called with an rvalue of type R the argument F will be deduced as R, and so F&& is R&&. In the Task constructor nothing changes, F&& is still R&& so the constructor takes an rvalue reference that is bound to the rvalue passed to Async, and so you could move it, but forward is also appropriate because that preserves the value category, forwarding the rvalue as an rvalue.
At CppCon last week Herb Sutter announced that the preferred term for a "universal reference" is now forwarding reference because that better describes what they are used for.
The ctor is not a universal reference, but a bog-standard rvalue-reference, or an lvalue-reference. Trouble with your construction is you have no idea which, just that it mirrors Async (which might be enough)!
In order to be a universal-reference, the type would have to be deduced for that call, and not sometime earlier for a somewhat-related call.
std::forward i still appropriate there, as the outer functions argument really should be passed on to the created object with preserved move-/copy-semantics.
Related
I know that this can be used to perform perfect forwarding:
template <typename A>
void foo(A&&) { /* */ }
This can be used to perform perfect forwarding on a certain type:
template <typename A, std::enable_if_t<std::is_same<std::decay_t<A>, int>::value, int> = 0>
void foo(A&&) { /* */ }
But these are just templates for functions, which means, that these get expanded to some functions, which are then used for every special case in which it might be used. However do these get expanded to:
void foo(A&) and void foo(A&&)
OR
void foo(A&) and void foo(A)
I always thought, it would be the first one, but then I noticed, that in that case, you wouldn't be able to use A const as an argument to the function, which certainly works.
However the second would be ambiguous, if you used a normal non-const lvalue. Does it call foo(A&) or foo(A)?
It's the first one. The second wouldn't make very much sense: there is no A such that A&& is a non-reference type.
If the argument is an lvalue of type cv T, then A is deduced as cv T&. If the argument is an rvalue of type cv T, then A is deduced as cv T and A&& is cv T&&. So when you pass in a const lvalue, the specialization generated is one that can accept a const argument.
They were called originally "Univeral References" by Scott Meyers, and now "Forwarding References".
As you can see, the references part has not changed. You pass in any kind of rvalue, you get a rvalue reference. You pass in any kind of lvalue, and you get a lvalue reference. Life is that simple.
An example here for std::forward,
// forward example
#include <utility> // std::forward
#include <iostream> // std::cout
// function with lvalue and rvalue reference overloads:
void overloaded (const int& x) {std::cout << "[lvalue]";}
void overloaded (int&& x) {std::cout << "[rvalue]";}
// function template taking rvalue reference to deduced type:
template <class T> void fn (T&& x) {
overloaded (x); // always an lvalue
overloaded (std::forward<T>(x)); // rvalue if argument is rvalue
}
int main () {
int a;
std::cout << "calling fn with lvalue: ";
fn (a);
std::cout << '\n';
std::cout << "calling fn with rvalue: ";
fn (0);
std::cout << '\n';
return 0;
}
Output:
calling fn with lvalue: [lvalue][lvalue]
calling fn with rvalue: [lvalue][rvalue]
mentions that
the fact that all named values (such as function parameters) always
evaluate as lvalues (even those declared as rvalue references)
Whereas, the typical move constructor looks like
ClassName(ClassName&& other)
: _data(other._data)
{
}
which looks like _data(other._data) should invoke the move constructor of _data's class. But, how is it possible without using std::forward? In other words, shouldn't it be
ClassName(ClassName&& other)
: _data(std::forward(other._data))
{
}
?
Because, as pointed out in std:forward case,
all then named values should evaluate as lvalue
I more and more like C++ because of the depth of issue like this and the fact that the language is bold enough to provide such features :) Thank you!
A typical move constructor looks like this (assuming it is explicitly implemented: you might want to prefer = default):
ClassName::ClassName(ClassName&& other)
: _data(std::move(other._data)) {
}
Without the std::move() the member is copied: since it has a name other is an lvalue. The object the reference is bound to is an rvalue or an object considered as such, however.
std::forward<T>(obj) is always used with an explicit template argument. In practice the type is that deduced for a forwarding reference. These look remarkably like rvalue references but are something entirely different! In particular, a forwarding reference may refer to an lvalue.
You may be interested in my Two Daemons article which describes the difference in detail.
std::forward should be used with a forwarding reference.
std::move should be used with an rvalue reference.
There is nothing particular about constructors. The rules apply the same to any function, member function or constructor.
The most important thing is to realize when you have a forwarding reference and when you have an rvalue reference. They look similar but are not.
A forwarding reference is always in the form:
T&& ref
for T some deduced type.
For instance, this is a forwarding reference:
template <class T>
auto foo(T&& ref) -> void;
All these are rvalue references:
auto foo(int&& ref) -> void; // int not deduced
template <class T>
auto foo(const T&& ref); // not in form `T&&` (note the const)
template <class T>
auto foo(std::vector<T>&& ref) -> void; // not in form `T&&`
template <class T>
struct X {
auto foo(T&& ref) -> T; // T not deduced. (It was deduced at class level)
};
For more please check this excellent in-depth article by Scott Meyers with the note that when the article was written the term "universal reference" was used (actually introduced by Scott himself). Now it is agreed that "forwarding reference" better describes it's purpose and usage.
So your example should be:
ClassName(ClassName&& other)
: _data(std::move(other._data))
{
}
as other is an rvalue reference because ClassName is not a deduced type.
This Ideone example should make things pretty clear for you. If not, keep reading.
The following constructor accepts Rvalues only. However, since the argument "other" got a name it lost its "rvalueness" and now is a Lvalue. To cast it back to Rvalue, you have to use std::move. There's no reason to use std::forward here because this constructor does not accept Lvalues. If you try to call it with a Lvalue, you will get compile error.
ClassName(ClassName&& other)
: _data(std::move(other._data))
{
// If you don't use move, you could have:
// cout << other._data;
// And you will notice "other" has not been moved.
}
The following constructor accepts both Lvalues and Rvalues. Scott Meyers called it "Universal Rerefences", but now it's called "Forwarding References". That's why, here, it's a must to use std::forward so that if other was an Rvalue, _data constructor will get called with an Rvalue. If other was an Lvalue, _data will be constructed with an Lvalue. That's why it's called perfect-forwarding.
template<typename T>
ClassName(T&& other)
: _data(std::forward<decltype(_data)>(other._data))
{
}
I've tried to use your constructors as an example so you could understand, but this is not specific to constructors. This applies to functions as well.
With the first example tho, since your first constructor only accepts Rvalues, you could perfectly use std::forward instead, and both would do the same thing. But it's best not to do it, because people may think that your constructor accepts a forwarding reference, when it actually doesn't.
In VS2010 std::forward is defined as such:
template<class _Ty> inline
_Ty&& forward(typename identity<_Ty>::type& _Arg)
{ // forward _Arg, given explicitly specified type parameter
return ((_Ty&&)_Arg);
}
identity appears to be used solely to disable template argument deduction. What's the point of purposefully disabling it in this case?
If you pass an rvalue reference to an object of type X to a template function that takes type T&& as its parameter, template argument deduction deduces T to be X. Therefore, the parameter has type X&&. If the function argument is an lvalue or const lvalue, the compiler deduces its type to be an lvalue reference or const lvalue reference of that type.
If std::forward used template argument deduction:
Since objects with names are lvalues the only time std::forward would correctly cast to T&& would be when the input argument was an unnamed rvalue (like 7 or func()). In the case of perfect forwarding the arg you pass to std::forward is an lvalue because it has a name. std::forward's type would be deduced as an lvalue reference or const lvalue reference. Reference collapsing rules would cause the T&& in static_cast<T&&>(arg) in std::forward to always resolve as an lvalue reference or const lvalue reference.
Example:
template<typename T>
T&& forward_with_deduction(T&& obj)
{
return static_cast<T&&>(obj);
}
void test(int&){}
void test(const int&){}
void test(int&&){}
template<typename T>
void perfect_forwarder(T&& obj)
{
test(forward_with_deduction(obj));
}
int main()
{
int x;
const int& y(x);
int&& z = std::move(x);
test(forward_with_deduction(7)); // 7 is an int&&, correctly calls test(int&&)
test(forward_with_deduction(z)); // z is treated as an int&, calls test(int&)
// All the below call test(int&) or test(const int&) because in perfect_forwarder 'obj' is treated as
// an int& or const int& (because it is named) so T in forward_with_deduction is deduced as int&
// or const int&. The T&& in static_cast<T&&>(obj) then collapses to int& or const int& - which is not what
// we want in the bottom two cases.
perfect_forwarder(x);
perfect_forwarder(y);
perfect_forwarder(std::move(x));
perfect_forwarder(std::move(y));
}
Because std::forward(expr) is not useful. The only thing it can do is a no-op, i.e. perfectly-forward its argument and act like an identity function. The alternative would be that it's the same as std::move, but we already have that. In other words, assuming it were possible, in
template<typename Arg>
void generic_program(Arg&& arg)
{
std::forward(arg);
}
std::forward(arg) is semantically equivalent to arg. On the other hand, std::forward<Arg>(arg) is not a no-op in the general case.
So by forbidding std::forward(arg) it helps catch programmer errors and we lose nothing since any possible use of std::forward(arg) are trivially replaced by arg.
I think you'd understand things better if we focus on what exactly std::forward<Arg>(arg) does, rather than what std::forward(arg) would do (since it's an uninteresting no-op). Let's try to write a no-op function template that perfectly forwards its argument.
template<typename NoopArg>
NoopArg&& noop(NoopArg&& arg)
{ return arg; }
This naive first attempt isn't quite valid. If we call noop(0) then NoopArg is deduced as int. This means that the return type is int&& and we can't bind such an rvalue reference from the expression arg, which is an lvalue (it's the name of a parameter). If we then attempt:
template<typename NoopArg>
NoopArg&& noop(NoopArg&& arg)
{ return std::move(arg); }
then int i = 0; noop(i); fails. This time, NoopArg is deduced as int& (reference collapsing rules guarantees that int& && collapses to int&), hence the return type is int&, and this time we can't bind such an lvalue reference from the expression std::move(arg) which is an xvalue.
In the context of a perfect-forwarding function like noop, sometimes we want to move, but other times we don't. The rule to know whether we should move depends on Arg: if it's not an lvalue reference type, it means noop was passed an rvalue. If it is an lvalue reference type, it means noop was passed an lvalue. So in std::forward<NoopArg>(arg), NoopArg is a necessary argument to std::forward in order for the function template to do the right thing. Without it, there's not enough information. This NoopArg is not the same type as what the T parameter of std::forward would be deduced in the general case.
Short answer:
Because for std::forward to work as intended(, i.e. to faitfully pass the original type info), it is meant to be used INSIDE TEMPLATE CONTEXT, and it must use the deduced type param from the enclosing template context, instead of deducing the type param by itself(, since only the enclosing templates have the chance to deduce the true type info, this will be explained in the details), hence the type param must be provided.
Though using std::forward inside non-template context is possible, it is pointless(, will be explained in the details).
And if anyone dares to try implementing std::forward to allow type deducing, he/she is doomed to fail painfully.
Details:
Example:
template <typename T>
auto someFunc(T&& arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<T>(para)); }
Observer that arg is declared as T&&,( it is the key to deduce the true type passed, and) it is not a rvalue reference, though it has the same syntax, it is called an universal reference (Terminology coined by Scott Meyers), because T is a generic type, (likewise, in string s; auto && ss = s; ss is not a rvalue reference).
Thanks to universal reference, some type deduce magic happens when someFunc is being instantiated, specifically as following:
If an rvalue object, which has the type _T or _T &, is passed to someFunc, T will be deduced as _T &(, yeah, even if the type of X is just _T, please read Meyers' artical)；
If an rvalue of type _T && is passed to someFunc，T will be deduced as _T &&
Now, you can replace T with the true type in above code:
When lvalue obj is passed:
auto someFunc(_T & && arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<_T &>(arg)); }
And after applying reference collapse rule(, pls read Meyers' artical), we get:
auto someFunc(_T & arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<_T &>(arg)); }
When rvalue obj is passed:
auto someFunc(_T && && arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<_T &&>(arg)); }
And after applying reference collapse rule(, pls read Meyers' artical), we get:
auto someFunc(_T && arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<_T &&>(arg)); }
Now, you can guess what std::forwrd does eseentially is just static_cast<T>(para)(, in fact, in clang 11's implementation it is static_cast<T &&>(para), which is the same after applying reference collapsing rule). Everything works out fine.
But if you think about let std::fowrd deducing the type param by itself, you'll quickly find out that inside someFunc, std::forward literally IS NOT ABLE TO deduce the original type of arg.
If you try to make the compiler do it, it will never be deduced as _T &&(, yeah, even when arg is bind to an _T &&, it is still an lvaule obj inside someFunc, hence can only be deduceed as _T or _T &.... you really should read Meyers' artical).
Last, why should you only use std::forward inside templates? Because in non-templates context, you know exactly what type of obj you have. So, if you have an lvalue bind to an rvalue reference, and you need to pass it as an lvaule to another function, just pass it, or if you need to pass it as rvalue, just do std::move. You simply DON'T NEED std::forward inside non-template context.
In VS2010 std::forward is defined as such:
template<class _Ty> inline
_Ty&& forward(typename identity<_Ty>::type& _Arg)
{ // forward _Arg, given explicitly specified type parameter
return ((_Ty&&)_Arg);
}
identity appears to be used solely to disable template argument deduction. What's the point of purposefully disabling it in this case?
If you pass an rvalue reference to an object of type X to a template function that takes type T&& as its parameter, template argument deduction deduces T to be X. Therefore, the parameter has type X&&. If the function argument is an lvalue or const lvalue, the compiler deduces its type to be an lvalue reference or const lvalue reference of that type.
If std::forward used template argument deduction:
Since objects with names are lvalues the only time std::forward would correctly cast to T&& would be when the input argument was an unnamed rvalue (like 7 or func()). In the case of perfect forwarding the arg you pass to std::forward is an lvalue because it has a name. std::forward's type would be deduced as an lvalue reference or const lvalue reference. Reference collapsing rules would cause the T&& in static_cast<T&&>(arg) in std::forward to always resolve as an lvalue reference or const lvalue reference.
Example:
template<typename T>
T&& forward_with_deduction(T&& obj)
{
return static_cast<T&&>(obj);
}
void test(int&){}
void test(const int&){}
void test(int&&){}
template<typename T>
void perfect_forwarder(T&& obj)
{
test(forward_with_deduction(obj));
}
int main()
{
int x;
const int& y(x);
int&& z = std::move(x);
test(forward_with_deduction(7)); // 7 is an int&&, correctly calls test(int&&)
test(forward_with_deduction(z)); // z is treated as an int&, calls test(int&)
// All the below call test(int&) or test(const int&) because in perfect_forwarder 'obj' is treated as
// an int& or const int& (because it is named) so T in forward_with_deduction is deduced as int&
// or const int&. The T&& in static_cast<T&&>(obj) then collapses to int& or const int& - which is not what
// we want in the bottom two cases.
perfect_forwarder(x);
perfect_forwarder(y);
perfect_forwarder(std::move(x));
perfect_forwarder(std::move(y));
}
Because std::forward(expr) is not useful. The only thing it can do is a no-op, i.e. perfectly-forward its argument and act like an identity function. The alternative would be that it's the same as std::move, but we already have that. In other words, assuming it were possible, in
template<typename Arg>
void generic_program(Arg&& arg)
{
std::forward(arg);
}
std::forward(arg) is semantically equivalent to arg. On the other hand, std::forward<Arg>(arg) is not a no-op in the general case.
So by forbidding std::forward(arg) it helps catch programmer errors and we lose nothing since any possible use of std::forward(arg) are trivially replaced by arg.
I think you'd understand things better if we focus on what exactly std::forward<Arg>(arg) does, rather than what std::forward(arg) would do (since it's an uninteresting no-op). Let's try to write a no-op function template that perfectly forwards its argument.
template<typename NoopArg>
NoopArg&& noop(NoopArg&& arg)
{ return arg; }
This naive first attempt isn't quite valid. If we call noop(0) then NoopArg is deduced as int. This means that the return type is int&& and we can't bind such an rvalue reference from the expression arg, which is an lvalue (it's the name of a parameter). If we then attempt:
template<typename NoopArg>
NoopArg&& noop(NoopArg&& arg)
{ return std::move(arg); }
then int i = 0; noop(i); fails. This time, NoopArg is deduced as int& (reference collapsing rules guarantees that int& && collapses to int&), hence the return type is int&, and this time we can't bind such an lvalue reference from the expression std::move(arg) which is an xvalue.
In the context of a perfect-forwarding function like noop, sometimes we want to move, but other times we don't. The rule to know whether we should move depends on Arg: if it's not an lvalue reference type, it means noop was passed an rvalue. If it is an lvalue reference type, it means noop was passed an lvalue. So in std::forward<NoopArg>(arg), NoopArg is a necessary argument to std::forward in order for the function template to do the right thing. Without it, there's not enough information. This NoopArg is not the same type as what the T parameter of std::forward would be deduced in the general case.
Short answer:
Because for std::forward to work as intended(, i.e. to faitfully pass the original type info), it is meant to be used INSIDE TEMPLATE CONTEXT, and it must use the deduced type param from the enclosing template context, instead of deducing the type param by itself(, since only the enclosing templates have the chance to deduce the true type info, this will be explained in the details), hence the type param must be provided.
Though using std::forward inside non-template context is possible, it is pointless(, will be explained in the details).
And if anyone dares to try implementing std::forward to allow type deducing, he/she is doomed to fail painfully.
Details:
Example:
template <typename T>
auto someFunc(T&& arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<T>(para)); }
Observer that arg is declared as T&&,( it is the key to deduce the true type passed, and) it is not a rvalue reference, though it has the same syntax, it is called an universal reference (Terminology coined by Scott Meyers), because T is a generic type, (likewise, in string s; auto && ss = s; ss is not a rvalue reference).
Thanks to universal reference, some type deduce magic happens when someFunc is being instantiated, specifically as following:
If an rvalue object, which has the type _T or _T &, is passed to someFunc, T will be deduced as _T &(, yeah, even if the type of X is just _T, please read Meyers' artical)；
If an rvalue of type _T && is passed to someFunc，T will be deduced as _T &&
Now, you can replace T with the true type in above code:
When lvalue obj is passed:
auto someFunc(_T & && arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<_T &>(arg)); }
And after applying reference collapse rule(, pls read Meyers' artical), we get:
auto someFunc(_T & arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<_T &>(arg)); }
When rvalue obj is passed:
auto someFunc(_T && && arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<_T &&>(arg)); }
And after applying reference collapse rule(, pls read Meyers' artical), we get:
auto someFunc(_T && arg){ doSomething(); call_other_func(std::forward<_T &&>(arg)); }
Now, you can guess what std::forwrd does eseentially is just static_cast<T>(para)(, in fact, in clang 11's implementation it is static_cast<T &&>(para), which is the same after applying reference collapsing rule). Everything works out fine.
But if you think about let std::fowrd deducing the type param by itself, you'll quickly find out that inside someFunc, std::forward literally IS NOT ABLE TO deduce the original type of arg.
If you try to make the compiler do it, it will never be deduced as _T &&(, yeah, even when arg is bind to an _T &&, it is still an lvaule obj inside someFunc, hence can only be deduceed as _T or _T &.... you really should read Meyers' artical).
Last, why should you only use std::forward inside templates? Because in non-templates context, you know exactly what type of obj you have. So, if you have an lvalue bind to an rvalue reference, and you need to pass it as an lvaule to another function, just pass it, or if you need to pass it as rvalue, just do std::move. You simply DON'T NEED std::forward inside non-template context.
Given the following function template from "The C++ Programming language 4th edition":
template <typename TT, typename A>
unique_ptr<TT> make_unique(int i, A && a)
{
return unique_ptr<TT>{new TT{ i, std::forward<A>(a) }};
}
I find it difficult to understand what that actually does,
a is definitely an rvalue and therefore the make_unique function
seem to allocate its content on the heap and holding that address in a unique_ptr so we won't have to worry about deleting it. but, what does the standard library forward function does? (I guess it has something to do with a being rvalue) I tried reading at C++ documentation but I don't seem to understand that properly.
would love to get a good explanation from a more experienced C++ programmer.
thanks!
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure this isn't given as a work-around implementation of the future std::make_unique, but anyway, what the function does is pretty easy to understand, though it requires you to have prior knowledge of new C++11 features.
template <typename TT, typename A>
unique_ptr<TT> make_unique(int i, A && a)
{
return unique_ptr<TT>{new TT{ i, std::forward<A>(a) }};
}
First of all make_unique is a function template, I really hope you already know that, as the following would require that you have at least the most basic knowledge on what templates does and how templates work.
Now to the non-trivial parts. A && a there is a function parameter. Specifically, a is the function parameter whose type is A&& which is an r-value reference. With its type being a template type parameter, we can deduce its type from whatever the caller passes as an argument to a. Whenever we have r-value reference and argument type deduction, special deduction rules and reference collapsing kicks-in and we have a so-called "universal reference" which is particularly useful for perfect forwarding functions.
Whenever we have a universal reference (a in our case), we will almost always want to preserve its original "l-valueness" or "r-valueness" whenever we want to use them. To have this kind of behavior, we should almost always use std::forward (std::forward<A>(a)). By using std::forward, a variable originally passed as an l-value remains an l-value and a variable originally passed as an r-value remains an r-value.
After that, things are just simple
return unique_ptr<TT>{new TT{ i, std::forward<A>(a) }};
Notice the use of the braces. Instead of using parentheses, it is using C++11's uniform initialization syntax of calling constructors. With new TT{ i, std::forward<A>(a) }, you are dynamically allocating an object of type TT with the given parameters inside the braces. With unique_ptr<TT>{new TT{ i, std::forward<A>(a) }};, you are creating a unique_ptr<TT> whose parameter is the one returned by the dynamic allocation. The unique_ptr<TT> object now then returned from the function.
Due to template argument deduction and reference collapsing rules you cannot know if a is a rvalue reference or a lvalue reference. std::forward passes the argument to the TT contrustor exactly as it was passed to make_unique. Scott Meyers calls A&& a universal reference, because it can be a lvalue ref or an rvalue ref, depended on what is passed to make_unique.
If you pass an rvalue Foo to make_unique, std::forward passes an rvalue reference.
If you pass an lvalue Foo to make_unique, std::forward passes an lvalue reference.
make_unique(1, Foo()); // make_unique(int, A&&) -> rvalue ref
Foo f;
make_unique(1, f); // make_unique(int, A&&&) -> make_unique(int, A&) -> lvalue ref
make_unique(1, std::move(f)); // make_unique(int, A&&&&) -> make_unique(int, A&&) -> rvalue ref