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.