What happens with this C++ code?
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(bool myDefault = true): default(myDefault) {}
bool default;
};
void FunctionFoo(const Foo& foo)
{
if(foo.default)
cout << "default";
else
cout << "not default";
}
void main(){
Foo* pFoo = new Foo(false);
FunctionFoo(pFoo);
}
Any guesses?
Well it prints “default”. You may have expected it to print “not default”. Why is that, you ask?
Well, what happens is that in main FunctionFoo() gets passed a default constructed version of Foo. Not the Foo instance pointed to by pFoo. Quite a subtle bug I think. Especially because the compiler says nothing. How do you fix this problem. Easy. Put the keyword “explicit” in front of the constructor.
This has to do with the fact that C++ will implicitly convert parameters to methods/functions whenever it feels it can. See Effective C++ Item #18.
In C++ it is possible to declare constructors for a class, taking a single parameter, and use those constructors for doing type conversion. For example:
class A {
public:
A(int);
};
void f(A) {}
void g()
{
A a1 = 37;
A a2 = A(47);
A a3(57);
a1 = 67;
f(77);
}
A declaration like:
A a1 = 37;
says to call the A(int) constructor to create an A object from the integer value. Such a constructor is called a “converting constructor”.
However, this type of implicit conversion can be confusing, and there is a way of disabling it, using the keyword “explicit” in the constructor declaration:
class A {
public:
explicit A(int);
};
void f(A) {}
void g()
{
A a1 = 37; // illegal
A a2 = A(47); // OK
A a3(57); // OK
a1 = 67; // illegal
f(77); // illegal
}
Using the explicit keyword, a constructor is declared to be “nonconverting”, and explicit constructor syntax is required:
class A {
public:
explicit A(int);
};
void f(A) {}
void g()
{
A a1 = A(37); // OK
A a2 = A(47); // OK
A a3(57); // OK
a1 = A(67); // OK
f(A(77)); // OK
}
Note that an expression such as:
A(47)
is closely related to function-style casts supported by C++. For example:
double d = 12.34; int i = int(d);
While I “knew” this stuff, I’ve been bitten by hidden bugs due to implicit converting constructors a couple of times recently so I thought I’d share it just in case others were not aware or had forgotten.
I highly recommend using the explicit keyword on all your single parameter constructors unless you explicitly want to use C++’s implicit conversion feature. Personally I think this is a broken language feature. 99% of the time you don’t want implicit conversion. When you do you should have to specify an “implicit” conversion constructor eg:
class A {
public:
implicit A(int);
};
But I’m not on the C++ standards body so I don’t get to make those decisions.
Filed under: Programming , c++, Programming
Recent Comments