Conversion vs subscript operator overload for class wrapping an array

Question

I have a class wrapping an array and want to provide the typical subscript access to its users.

...
class C;
C c;
auto x = c[0];
...

I may both provide conversion

class C
{
    int i[10];
public:
    operator int*() { return i; }
};

and provide subscript operator overload

class C
{
    int i[10];
public:    
    int& operator[](unsigned idx) {
        // eventual out-of-bounds check
        return i[idx]; 
    }
};

Apart from OOB check, which one should be preferred?

Prefer `operator[]`. See this related [question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59076004/why-stdstring-does-not-have-const-char-cast) for reasons why. — Evg, Nov 28 '19 at 10:47
_Apart from OOB check_ OOB = out-of-bounds? Range check (maybe, in debug only like in common `std::vector::operator[]` implementations) alone is worth to prefer the latter. ;-) — Scheff's Cat, Nov 28 '19 at 10:52

songyuanyao · Accepted Answer · 2019-11-28T10:53:48.840

3

If you just want to call operator[] on the class C, then just overload operator[]. Don't allow implicit conversion if not necessary. If you provide operator int*, something meaningless and dangerous will be allowed too. e.g.

C c;
if (c) ...;
delete c;

edited Nov 28 '19 at 10:53

answered Nov 28 '19 at 10:48

songyuanyao

169,198
16
310
405

1

_Don't allow implicit conversion if not necessary._ I just remembered how often I add `explicit` to constructors to satisfy my paranoidity, and spent +1. ;-) – Scheff's Cat Nov 28 '19 at 10:55
@Scheff It's worthwhile, definitely. :) – songyuanyao Nov 28 '19 at 10:57

Conversion vs subscript operator overload for class wrapping an array

1 Answers1