Why should we use "::" operator on global functions / objects? - c++

I have seen this used in various places. C++ programmers will often use the :: operator right before a global function call.
e.g
::glGenBuffers( 1, &id );
Why is this? Why not just use:
glGenBuffers( 1, &id );

To avoid accidental namespace clashing. For example if you current namespace would have glGenBuffers which does something different from the "good" glGenBuffers with :: you can specify to call the glGenBuffers which is in the global namespace.

The problem is 1) names in inner scopes hide names in outer scopes and 2) there can be ambiguous of function calls when using directive is used.
For example (ambiguity)
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
void swap( int &x, int &y )
{
int tmp = x;
x = y;
y = tmp;
}
int main()
{
int x = 5, y = 10;
//swap( x, y ); compiler error: what function to call?
::swap( x, y ); // the user defined function is called
std::swap( x, y ); // the standard function is called.
}
Another example of hidding names
#include <iostream>
void f() { std::cout << "::f()\n"; }
namespace MyNamespace
{
void f() { std::cout << "MyNamespace::f()\n"; }
void g() { f(); } // calls MyNamespace::f()
void h() { ::f(); } // calls ::f()
}
int main()
{
MyNamespace::g();
MyNamespace::h();
}

As you can see here C++ Scope Resolution Operator ::
The :: (scope resolution) operator is used to qualify hidden names so
that you can still use them. You can use the unary scope operator if a
namespace scope or global scope name is hidden by an explicit
declaration of the same name in a block or class.

::glGenBuffers to force choose the method in global namespace
void method()
{
std::cout << "method in global namespace";
}
class Test {
void method()
{
std::cout << "method in Test class";
}
void test()
{
method(); // method in Test class
::method(); //method in global namespace
}
}

Explicitly marking the scope may save you from unexpected matches through using declarations or argument dependent lookup. For example, consider the following:
namespace foo
{
class X {};
void bar(X*, int):
}
// ... much in between ...
foo::X some_object
// ... more in between ...
void bar(X*, long);
int main()
{
bar(&some_object, 42); // calls foo::bar, because it is a better match
::bar(&some_object, 42); // calls ::bar, because it is explicitly told to
}
If you were not aware that there is a bar in namespace foo, or that some_object has a type from namespace foo, the call to foo::bar instead of ::bar may catch you by surprise.

The scope operator (::) is used for accessing the global namespace on 2 occasions mainly:
a) importing a global method / variable / typedef (from global namespace) into a namespace:
int fun()
{
return 1;
}
namespace x
{
using ::fun;
// you cannot do `using fun`, as using requires a namespace after
// in this case, we are `using` the global namespace
}
int main()
{
std::cout << fun() + x::fun(); // prints 2
}
Edit: This is done by some STL implementations, for example: std::size_t:
typedef unsigned int size_t;
namespace std
{
using ::size_t;
}
size_t x = 1;
std::size_t y = 2;
b) To avoid clashing:
# include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
template<class T> inline
void swap(T &left, T &right)
{
T tmp = left;
left = right;
right = tmp;
}
int main()
{
int a = 1, b = 2;
// swap(a, b) - error: which 'swap'?
std::swap(a, b); // the one in <algorithm>
::swap(a, b); // the one i defined
}
Note: using namespace std; is not a reccomended practise.
Edit
MSVC compiler provides the _CSTD macro (#define _CSTD ::), so that you can use using _CSTD fun;, e.t.c instead if you prefer.

Related

How to use nested namespace to avoid ambiguity?

I have the following operators defined in the corresponding namespaces:
namespace literals
{
constexpr ID operator"" _ID(const unsigned long long dyngateID)
{
// ...
// return a constructed id
}
namespace multiplied
{
constexpr ID operator"" _ID(const unsigned long long dyngateID)
{
// ...
// return an id constructed in a specific way
}
} // namespace multiplied
} // namespace literals
In a .cpp file I would like to use both functions, hence I've declared using namespace literals and when I am declaring using namespace multiplied in a concrete function I am getting ambiguous call to overloaded function compile error. How can I differentiate these functions?
Test.cpp
using namespace literals;
void f()
{
// here I am using literals' _ID which is fine
const Type id{1_ID};
}
void g()
{
// here I want to use multiplied's _ID, but obviously I am failing to do so
using namespace multiplied;
const Type id{1_ID};
}
The name lookup rules for using namespace are such that the declarations introduced by it appear to be located in the inner-most namespace scope enclosing both the current namespace scope and the target namespace scope.
Therefore it is no good to disambiguate based on the scoping of multiple reachable using namespace statements.
Instead you can import the declaration with a using declaration:
void g()
{
using multiplied::operator""_ID;
const Type id{1_ID};
}
This will behave as if the operator was declared in the scope, so that name lookup will stop there and won't look at the declaration imported by the outer using namespace.
Alternatively, you can call the user-defined literal operator directly with a qualified call:
void g()
{
const Type id{multiplied::operator""_ID(1)};
}
As another possibility you can always limit the scope of the using namespace statements, so that only one of using namespace literals; or using namespace literals::multiplied; is reachable from any given scope using the operator, e.g.:
// no using namespace at this scope
void f()
{
using namespace literals;
const Type id{1_ID};
}
void g()
{
using namespace literals::multiplied;
const Type id{1_ID};
}
Consider the following code:
#include <iostream>
namespace one
{
int func(int num1, int num2)
{
return num1 * num2;
}
namespace two
{
int func(int num1, int num2)
{
return num1 * num2;
}
}
}
int f()
{
return one::two(1, 2) + 10;
}
int g()
{
return one::two::func(3, 4) + 10;
}
int main()
{
std::cout << f() << std::endl;
std::cout << g() << std::endl;
}
The above code will compile and run perfectly fine, and will work as expected, with f() using one::func() and g() using one::two::func(). If you have to write `using namespace one;' then you can do something like this:
using namespace one;
int f()
{
return func(1, 2) + 10;
}
int g()
{
return two::func(3, 4) + 10;
}
This will also result in the same output.

How do namespace's with same name but different scope (e.g. foo, bar::foo) work?

If there are two namespaces named Foo and Bar and there is a namespace named Foo inside Bar. If I refer to a variable Foo::i from inside Bar will it search for i in both Foo and Bar::Foo. If not, is it possible to make the compiler search in both namespaces when i doesn't exist in Bar::Foo?
More concrentely in the below example, I am trying to refer variable i from namespace a in b without puting extra ::. I know putting :: works, I am trying to see if there is any other way to resolve this.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
namespace a {
int i = 1;
}
namespace b {
namespace a {
}
namespace c {
int j = a::i; // Doesn't work, need to use ::a::i;
}
}
int main()
{
std::cout << b::c::j << "\n";
}
If you can change b::a, then you can indeed make certain declarations available in b::a from ::a as fallbacks:
namespace a {
int i = 1;
int j = 2;
}
namespace b {
namespace a {
namespace detail {
using ::a::i; // Selectively bring declarations from ::a here
}
using namespace detail; // Make the names in detail available for lookup (but not as declarations).
//int i = 2;
}
namespace c {
int j = a::i; // Uses ::a::i
// int k = a::j; // ERROR! We didn't bring ::a::j into b::a at all
}
}
Here it is live.
Un-commenting the declaration of b::a::i will change the output. Since a proper declaration takes precedence over names brought in by a namespace using directive.
You could explicitly have a using declaration in the inner namespace for variables that it wants to use from the outer one.
i.e. for your example,
namespace a {
int i = 1;
}
namespace b {
namespace a {
using ::a::i; //inner one does not define its own
int i2 = 2; //inner one creates its own variable
}
namespace c {
int j = a::i; // Doesn't work, need to use ::a::i;
}
}
See:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/namespace#Using-declarations

Is a fully qualified class name down to global scope ever required for out-of-line member function definitions?

This question got me wondering whether it is ever useful/necessary to fully qualify class names (including the global scope operator) in an out-of-class member function definition.
On the one hand, I've never seen this done before (and the syntax to properly do so seems obscure). On the other, C++ name lookup is very non-trivial, so maybe a corner case exists.
Question:
Is there ever a case where introducing an out-of-class member function definition by
ReturnType (::Fully::Qualified::Class::Name::MemberFunctionName)(...) { ... }
would differ from
ReturnType Fully::Qualified::Class::Name::MemberFunctionName(...) { ... } (no global scope :: prefix)?
Note that member function definitions must be put into a namespace enclosing the class, so this is not a valid example.
A using-directive can cause Fully to be ambiguous without qualification.
namespace Foo {
struct X {
};
}
using namespace Foo;
struct X {
void c();
};
void X::c() { } // ambiguous
void ::X::c() { } // OK
It's necessary if one is a masochist and enjoys writing stuff like this
namespace foo {
namespace foo {
struct bar {
void baz();
};
}
struct bar {
void baz();
};
void foo::bar::baz() {
}
void (::foo::bar::baz)() {
}
}
One can of course write the second overload as foo::foo::bar::baz in global scope, but the question was whether or not the two declarations can have a different meaning. I wouldn't recommend writing such code.
If a using directive is used then there can be a confusing code.
Consider the following demonstrative program
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
namespace N1
{
struct A
{
void f() const;
};
}
using namespace N1;
void A::f() const { std::cout << "N1::f()\n"; }
struct A
{
void f() const;
};
void ::A::f() const { std::cout << "::f()\n"; }
int main()
{
N1::A().f();
::A().f();
return 0;
}
So for readability this qualified name
void ::A::f() const { std::cout << "::f()\n"; }
shows precisely where the function is declared.

Why do I have to specify the outer namespace for a function in a nested anonymous namespace?

Given a namespace A. Inside is an anonymous namespace with function f and a class X, also with function f: Why do I have to specify the outer namespace A:: as a qualifier when calling anonymous f from A::X::f?
As a minimal example:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
namespace A {
namespace {
int f( int i ) { return i; }
}
class X {
public:
static int f() { A::f( 10 ); }
};
}
int main()
{
cout << A::X::f() << endl;
return 0;
}
Because, within the scope of X::f, the unqualified name f refers to X::f, not any other f. A name declared within a scope will hide anything with the same name in an outer scope.

Anonymous Namespace Ambiguity

Consider the following snippet:
void Foo() // 1
{
}
namespace
{
void Foo() // 2
{
}
}
int main()
{
Foo(); // Ambiguous.
::Foo(); // Calls the Foo in the global namespace (Foo #1).
// I'm trying to call the `Foo` that's defined in the anonymous namespace (Foo #2).
}
How can I refer to something inside an anonymous namespace in this case?
You can't. The standard contains the following section (§7.3.1.1, C++03):
An unnamed-namespace-definition behaves as if it were replaced by
namespace unique { /* empty body */ }
using namespace unique;
namespace unique { namespace-body }
where all occurrences of unique in a
translation unit are replaced by the
same identifier and this identifier
differs from all other identifiers in the entire program.
Thus you have no way to refer to that unique name.
You could however technically use something like the following instead:
int i;
namespace helper {
namespace {
int i;
int j;
}
}
using namespace helper;
void f() {
j++; // works
i++; // still ambigous
::i++; // access to global namespace
helper::i++; // access to unnamed namespace
}
While Georg gives standard-complient, correct, right, and respectable answer, I'd like to offer my hacky one - use another namespace within the anonymous namespace:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
namespace
{
namespace inner
{
int cout = 42;
}
}
int main()
{
cout << inner::cout << endl;
return 0;
}
The only solution I can think of that doesn't modify the existing namespace arrangement is to delegate main to a function in the anonymous namespace. (main itself is required to be a global function (§3.6.1/1), so it cannot be in an anonymous namespace.)
void Foo() // 1
{
}
namespace
{
void Foo() // 2
{
}
}
namespace { // re-open same anonymous namespace
int do_main()
{
Foo(); // Calls local, anonymous namespace (Foo #2).
::Foo(); // Calls the Foo in the global namespace (Foo #1).
return 0; // return not optional
}
}
int main() {
return do_main();
}
The only real way is to put the code you want to access that namespace within the namespace itself. There's no way to resolve to the unnamed namespace otherwise, since it has no identifier you can give it to solve the ambiguous resolution problem.
If your code is inside the namespace{} block itself, the local name gets priority over the global one, so a Foo() will call the Foo() within your namespace, and a ::Foo() will call the namespace at global scope.
Just rename the local namespace function.