When does type information flow backwards in C++?
up vote
70
down vote
favorite
I just watched Stephan T. Lavavej talk at CppCon 2018
on "Class Template Argument Deduction", where at some point he incidentally says:
In C++ type information almost never flows backwards ... I had to say "almost" because there's one or two cases, possibly more but very few.
Despite trying to figure out which cases he might be referring to, I couldn't come up with anything. Hence the question:
In which cases the C++17 standard mandates that type information propagate backwards?
c++ types language-lawyer c++17 type-deduction
add a comment |
up vote
70
down vote
favorite
I just watched Stephan T. Lavavej talk at CppCon 2018
on "Class Template Argument Deduction", where at some point he incidentally says:
In C++ type information almost never flows backwards ... I had to say "almost" because there's one or two cases, possibly more but very few.
Despite trying to figure out which cases he might be referring to, I couldn't come up with anything. Hence the question:
In which cases the C++17 standard mandates that type information propagate backwards?
c++ types language-lawyer c++17 type-deduction
pattern matching partial specialization and destructuring assignments.
– v.oddou
Nov 13 at 5:11
add a comment |
up vote
70
down vote
favorite
up vote
70
down vote
favorite
I just watched Stephan T. Lavavej talk at CppCon 2018
on "Class Template Argument Deduction", where at some point he incidentally says:
In C++ type information almost never flows backwards ... I had to say "almost" because there's one or two cases, possibly more but very few.
Despite trying to figure out which cases he might be referring to, I couldn't come up with anything. Hence the question:
In which cases the C++17 standard mandates that type information propagate backwards?
c++ types language-lawyer c++17 type-deduction
I just watched Stephan T. Lavavej talk at CppCon 2018
on "Class Template Argument Deduction", where at some point he incidentally says:
In C++ type information almost never flows backwards ... I had to say "almost" because there's one or two cases, possibly more but very few.
Despite trying to figure out which cases he might be referring to, I couldn't come up with anything. Hence the question:
In which cases the C++17 standard mandates that type information propagate backwards?
c++ types language-lawyer c++17 type-deduction
c++ types language-lawyer c++17 type-deduction
edited Nov 15 at 22:12
curiousguy
4,44922940
4,44922940
asked Nov 12 at 21:16
Massimiliano
5,23822851
5,23822851
pattern matching partial specialization and destructuring assignments.
– v.oddou
Nov 13 at 5:11
add a comment |
pattern matching partial specialization and destructuring assignments.
– v.oddou
Nov 13 at 5:11
pattern matching partial specialization and destructuring assignments.
– v.oddou
Nov 13 at 5:11
pattern matching partial specialization and destructuring assignments.
– v.oddou
Nov 13 at 5:11
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
Here is at least one case:
struct foo {
template<class T>
operator T() const {
std::cout << sizeof(T) << "n";
return {};
}
};
if you do foo f; int x = f; double y = f;
, type information will flow "backwards" to figure out what T
is in operator T
.
You can use this in a more advanced way:
template<class T>
struct tag_t {using type=T;};
template<class F>
struct deduce_return_t {
F f;
template<class T>
operator T()&&{ return std::forward<F>(f)(tag_t<T>{}); }
};
template<class F>
deduce_return_t(F&&)->deduce_return_t<F>;
template<class...Args>
auto construct_from( Args&&... args ) {
return deduce_return_t{ [&](auto ret){
using R=typename decltype(ret)::type;
return R{ std::forward<Args>(args)... };
}};
}
so now I can do
std::vector<int> v = construct_from( 1, 2, 3 );
and it works.
Of course, why not just do {1,2,3}
? Well, {1,2,3}
isn't an expression.
std::vector<std::vector<int>> v;
v.emplace_back( construct_from(1,2,3) );
which, admittedly, require a bit more wizardry: Live example. (I have to make the deduce return do a SFINAE check of F, then make the F be SFINAE friendly, and I have to block std::initializer_list in deduce_return_t operator T.)
Very interesting answer, and I learned a new trick so thank you very much! I had to add a template deduction guideline to make your example compile, but other than that it works like a charm!
– Massimiliano
Nov 12 at 22:28
5
The&&
qualifier on theoperator T()
is a great touch; it helps avoid the poor interaction withauto
by causing a compilation error ifauto
is misused here.
– Justin
Nov 12 at 22:42
1
That's very impressive, could you point me to some reference/talk to the idea in the example? or maybe it's original :) ...
– liliscent
Nov 12 at 23:59
@tootsie No, it is an aggregate, and I used{}
. I may need a deduction guide but I'm uncertain. Please note you could do this in 4 times the code and be twice as clear; I was being terse in my adding of a new language feature as a header file#include
here.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:10
3
@lili Which idea? I count 5: Using operator T to deduce return types? Using tags to pass the deduced type to a lambda? Using conversion operators to roll-your-own placement object construction? Connecting all 4?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:13
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
Stephan T. Lavavej explained the case he was talking about in a tweet:
The case I was thinking of is where you can take the address of an overloaded/templated function and if it’s being used to initialize a variable of a specific type, that will disambiguate which one you want. (There’s a list of what disambiguates.)
we can see examples of this from cppreference page on Address of overloaded function, I have excepted a few below:
int f(int) { return 1; }
int f(double) { return 2; }
void g( int(&f1)(int), int(*f2)(double) ) {}
int main(){
g(f, f); // selects int f(int) for the 1st argument
// and int f(double) for the second
auto foo = () -> int (*)(int) {
return f; // selects int f(int)
};
auto p = static_cast<int(*)(int)>(f); // selects int f(int)
}
Michael Park adds:
It's not limited to initializing a concrete type, either. It could also infer just from the number of arguments
and provides this live example:
void overload(int, int) {}
void overload(int, int, int) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2,
typename A1, typename A2>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2), A1&&, A2&&) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2, typename T3,
typename A1, typename A2, typename A3>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2, T3), A1&&, A2&&, A3&&) {}
int main () {
f(&overload, 1, 2);
}
which I elaborate a little more here.
3
We could also describe this as: cases where the type of an expression depends on the context?
– M.M
Nov 12 at 23:56
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
I believe in static casting of overloaded functions the flow goes the opposite direction as in usual overload resolution. So one of those is backwards, I guess.
5
I believe this is correct. And it is when you pass a function name to a function pointer type; type information flows from the context of the expression (the type you are assigning to/constructing/etc) backwards into the name of the function to determine which overload is chosen.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 12 at 22:08
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
Here is at least one case:
struct foo {
template<class T>
operator T() const {
std::cout << sizeof(T) << "n";
return {};
}
};
if you do foo f; int x = f; double y = f;
, type information will flow "backwards" to figure out what T
is in operator T
.
You can use this in a more advanced way:
template<class T>
struct tag_t {using type=T;};
template<class F>
struct deduce_return_t {
F f;
template<class T>
operator T()&&{ return std::forward<F>(f)(tag_t<T>{}); }
};
template<class F>
deduce_return_t(F&&)->deduce_return_t<F>;
template<class...Args>
auto construct_from( Args&&... args ) {
return deduce_return_t{ [&](auto ret){
using R=typename decltype(ret)::type;
return R{ std::forward<Args>(args)... };
}};
}
so now I can do
std::vector<int> v = construct_from( 1, 2, 3 );
and it works.
Of course, why not just do {1,2,3}
? Well, {1,2,3}
isn't an expression.
std::vector<std::vector<int>> v;
v.emplace_back( construct_from(1,2,3) );
which, admittedly, require a bit more wizardry: Live example. (I have to make the deduce return do a SFINAE check of F, then make the F be SFINAE friendly, and I have to block std::initializer_list in deduce_return_t operator T.)
Very interesting answer, and I learned a new trick so thank you very much! I had to add a template deduction guideline to make your example compile, but other than that it works like a charm!
– Massimiliano
Nov 12 at 22:28
5
The&&
qualifier on theoperator T()
is a great touch; it helps avoid the poor interaction withauto
by causing a compilation error ifauto
is misused here.
– Justin
Nov 12 at 22:42
1
That's very impressive, could you point me to some reference/talk to the idea in the example? or maybe it's original :) ...
– liliscent
Nov 12 at 23:59
@tootsie No, it is an aggregate, and I used{}
. I may need a deduction guide but I'm uncertain. Please note you could do this in 4 times the code and be twice as clear; I was being terse in my adding of a new language feature as a header file#include
here.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:10
3
@lili Which idea? I count 5: Using operator T to deduce return types? Using tags to pass the deduced type to a lambda? Using conversion operators to roll-your-own placement object construction? Connecting all 4?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:13
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
Here is at least one case:
struct foo {
template<class T>
operator T() const {
std::cout << sizeof(T) << "n";
return {};
}
};
if you do foo f; int x = f; double y = f;
, type information will flow "backwards" to figure out what T
is in operator T
.
You can use this in a more advanced way:
template<class T>
struct tag_t {using type=T;};
template<class F>
struct deduce_return_t {
F f;
template<class T>
operator T()&&{ return std::forward<F>(f)(tag_t<T>{}); }
};
template<class F>
deduce_return_t(F&&)->deduce_return_t<F>;
template<class...Args>
auto construct_from( Args&&... args ) {
return deduce_return_t{ [&](auto ret){
using R=typename decltype(ret)::type;
return R{ std::forward<Args>(args)... };
}};
}
so now I can do
std::vector<int> v = construct_from( 1, 2, 3 );
and it works.
Of course, why not just do {1,2,3}
? Well, {1,2,3}
isn't an expression.
std::vector<std::vector<int>> v;
v.emplace_back( construct_from(1,2,3) );
which, admittedly, require a bit more wizardry: Live example. (I have to make the deduce return do a SFINAE check of F, then make the F be SFINAE friendly, and I have to block std::initializer_list in deduce_return_t operator T.)
Very interesting answer, and I learned a new trick so thank you very much! I had to add a template deduction guideline to make your example compile, but other than that it works like a charm!
– Massimiliano
Nov 12 at 22:28
5
The&&
qualifier on theoperator T()
is a great touch; it helps avoid the poor interaction withauto
by causing a compilation error ifauto
is misused here.
– Justin
Nov 12 at 22:42
1
That's very impressive, could you point me to some reference/talk to the idea in the example? or maybe it's original :) ...
– liliscent
Nov 12 at 23:59
@tootsie No, it is an aggregate, and I used{}
. I may need a deduction guide but I'm uncertain. Please note you could do this in 4 times the code and be twice as clear; I was being terse in my adding of a new language feature as a header file#include
here.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:10
3
@lili Which idea? I count 5: Using operator T to deduce return types? Using tags to pass the deduced type to a lambda? Using conversion operators to roll-your-own placement object construction? Connecting all 4?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:13
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
Here is at least one case:
struct foo {
template<class T>
operator T() const {
std::cout << sizeof(T) << "n";
return {};
}
};
if you do foo f; int x = f; double y = f;
, type information will flow "backwards" to figure out what T
is in operator T
.
You can use this in a more advanced way:
template<class T>
struct tag_t {using type=T;};
template<class F>
struct deduce_return_t {
F f;
template<class T>
operator T()&&{ return std::forward<F>(f)(tag_t<T>{}); }
};
template<class F>
deduce_return_t(F&&)->deduce_return_t<F>;
template<class...Args>
auto construct_from( Args&&... args ) {
return deduce_return_t{ [&](auto ret){
using R=typename decltype(ret)::type;
return R{ std::forward<Args>(args)... };
}};
}
so now I can do
std::vector<int> v = construct_from( 1, 2, 3 );
and it works.
Of course, why not just do {1,2,3}
? Well, {1,2,3}
isn't an expression.
std::vector<std::vector<int>> v;
v.emplace_back( construct_from(1,2,3) );
which, admittedly, require a bit more wizardry: Live example. (I have to make the deduce return do a SFINAE check of F, then make the F be SFINAE friendly, and I have to block std::initializer_list in deduce_return_t operator T.)
Here is at least one case:
struct foo {
template<class T>
operator T() const {
std::cout << sizeof(T) << "n";
return {};
}
};
if you do foo f; int x = f; double y = f;
, type information will flow "backwards" to figure out what T
is in operator T
.
You can use this in a more advanced way:
template<class T>
struct tag_t {using type=T;};
template<class F>
struct deduce_return_t {
F f;
template<class T>
operator T()&&{ return std::forward<F>(f)(tag_t<T>{}); }
};
template<class F>
deduce_return_t(F&&)->deduce_return_t<F>;
template<class...Args>
auto construct_from( Args&&... args ) {
return deduce_return_t{ [&](auto ret){
using R=typename decltype(ret)::type;
return R{ std::forward<Args>(args)... };
}};
}
so now I can do
std::vector<int> v = construct_from( 1, 2, 3 );
and it works.
Of course, why not just do {1,2,3}
? Well, {1,2,3}
isn't an expression.
std::vector<std::vector<int>> v;
v.emplace_back( construct_from(1,2,3) );
which, admittedly, require a bit more wizardry: Live example. (I have to make the deduce return do a SFINAE check of F, then make the F be SFINAE friendly, and I have to block std::initializer_list in deduce_return_t operator T.)
edited Nov 13 at 15:49
answered Nov 12 at 21:26
Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
178k19184364
178k19184364
Very interesting answer, and I learned a new trick so thank you very much! I had to add a template deduction guideline to make your example compile, but other than that it works like a charm!
– Massimiliano
Nov 12 at 22:28
5
The&&
qualifier on theoperator T()
is a great touch; it helps avoid the poor interaction withauto
by causing a compilation error ifauto
is misused here.
– Justin
Nov 12 at 22:42
1
That's very impressive, could you point me to some reference/talk to the idea in the example? or maybe it's original :) ...
– liliscent
Nov 12 at 23:59
@tootsie No, it is an aggregate, and I used{}
. I may need a deduction guide but I'm uncertain. Please note you could do this in 4 times the code and be twice as clear; I was being terse in my adding of a new language feature as a header file#include
here.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:10
3
@lili Which idea? I count 5: Using operator T to deduce return types? Using tags to pass the deduced type to a lambda? Using conversion operators to roll-your-own placement object construction? Connecting all 4?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:13
|
show 5 more comments
Very interesting answer, and I learned a new trick so thank you very much! I had to add a template deduction guideline to make your example compile, but other than that it works like a charm!
– Massimiliano
Nov 12 at 22:28
5
The&&
qualifier on theoperator T()
is a great touch; it helps avoid the poor interaction withauto
by causing a compilation error ifauto
is misused here.
– Justin
Nov 12 at 22:42
1
That's very impressive, could you point me to some reference/talk to the idea in the example? or maybe it's original :) ...
– liliscent
Nov 12 at 23:59
@tootsie No, it is an aggregate, and I used{}
. I may need a deduction guide but I'm uncertain. Please note you could do this in 4 times the code and be twice as clear; I was being terse in my adding of a new language feature as a header file#include
here.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:10
3
@lili Which idea? I count 5: Using operator T to deduce return types? Using tags to pass the deduced type to a lambda? Using conversion operators to roll-your-own placement object construction? Connecting all 4?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:13
Very interesting answer, and I learned a new trick so thank you very much! I had to add a template deduction guideline to make your example compile, but other than that it works like a charm!
– Massimiliano
Nov 12 at 22:28
Very interesting answer, and I learned a new trick so thank you very much! I had to add a template deduction guideline to make your example compile, but other than that it works like a charm!
– Massimiliano
Nov 12 at 22:28
5
5
The
&&
qualifier on the operator T()
is a great touch; it helps avoid the poor interaction with auto
by causing a compilation error if auto
is misused here.– Justin
Nov 12 at 22:42
The
&&
qualifier on the operator T()
is a great touch; it helps avoid the poor interaction with auto
by causing a compilation error if auto
is misused here.– Justin
Nov 12 at 22:42
1
1
That's very impressive, could you point me to some reference/talk to the idea in the example? or maybe it's original :) ...
– liliscent
Nov 12 at 23:59
That's very impressive, could you point me to some reference/talk to the idea in the example? or maybe it's original :) ...
– liliscent
Nov 12 at 23:59
@tootsie No, it is an aggregate, and I used
{}
. I may need a deduction guide but I'm uncertain. Please note you could do this in 4 times the code and be twice as clear; I was being terse in my adding of a new language feature as a header file #include
here.– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:10
@tootsie No, it is an aggregate, and I used
{}
. I may need a deduction guide but I'm uncertain. Please note you could do this in 4 times the code and be twice as clear; I was being terse in my adding of a new language feature as a header file #include
here.– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:10
3
3
@lili Which idea? I count 5: Using operator T to deduce return types? Using tags to pass the deduced type to a lambda? Using conversion operators to roll-your-own placement object construction? Connecting all 4?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:13
@lili Which idea? I count 5: Using operator T to deduce return types? Using tags to pass the deduced type to a lambda? Using conversion operators to roll-your-own placement object construction? Connecting all 4?
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 13 at 0:13
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
Stephan T. Lavavej explained the case he was talking about in a tweet:
The case I was thinking of is where you can take the address of an overloaded/templated function and if it’s being used to initialize a variable of a specific type, that will disambiguate which one you want. (There’s a list of what disambiguates.)
we can see examples of this from cppreference page on Address of overloaded function, I have excepted a few below:
int f(int) { return 1; }
int f(double) { return 2; }
void g( int(&f1)(int), int(*f2)(double) ) {}
int main(){
g(f, f); // selects int f(int) for the 1st argument
// and int f(double) for the second
auto foo = () -> int (*)(int) {
return f; // selects int f(int)
};
auto p = static_cast<int(*)(int)>(f); // selects int f(int)
}
Michael Park adds:
It's not limited to initializing a concrete type, either. It could also infer just from the number of arguments
and provides this live example:
void overload(int, int) {}
void overload(int, int, int) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2,
typename A1, typename A2>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2), A1&&, A2&&) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2, typename T3,
typename A1, typename A2, typename A3>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2, T3), A1&&, A2&&, A3&&) {}
int main () {
f(&overload, 1, 2);
}
which I elaborate a little more here.
3
We could also describe this as: cases where the type of an expression depends on the context?
– M.M
Nov 12 at 23:56
add a comment |
up vote
24
down vote
Stephan T. Lavavej explained the case he was talking about in a tweet:
The case I was thinking of is where you can take the address of an overloaded/templated function and if it’s being used to initialize a variable of a specific type, that will disambiguate which one you want. (There’s a list of what disambiguates.)
we can see examples of this from cppreference page on Address of overloaded function, I have excepted a few below:
int f(int) { return 1; }
int f(double) { return 2; }
void g( int(&f1)(int), int(*f2)(double) ) {}
int main(){
g(f, f); // selects int f(int) for the 1st argument
// and int f(double) for the second
auto foo = () -> int (*)(int) {
return f; // selects int f(int)
};
auto p = static_cast<int(*)(int)>(f); // selects int f(int)
}
Michael Park adds:
It's not limited to initializing a concrete type, either. It could also infer just from the number of arguments
and provides this live example:
void overload(int, int) {}
void overload(int, int, int) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2,
typename A1, typename A2>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2), A1&&, A2&&) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2, typename T3,
typename A1, typename A2, typename A3>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2, T3), A1&&, A2&&, A3&&) {}
int main () {
f(&overload, 1, 2);
}
which I elaborate a little more here.
3
We could also describe this as: cases where the type of an expression depends on the context?
– M.M
Nov 12 at 23:56
add a comment |
up vote
24
down vote
up vote
24
down vote
Stephan T. Lavavej explained the case he was talking about in a tweet:
The case I was thinking of is where you can take the address of an overloaded/templated function and if it’s being used to initialize a variable of a specific type, that will disambiguate which one you want. (There’s a list of what disambiguates.)
we can see examples of this from cppreference page on Address of overloaded function, I have excepted a few below:
int f(int) { return 1; }
int f(double) { return 2; }
void g( int(&f1)(int), int(*f2)(double) ) {}
int main(){
g(f, f); // selects int f(int) for the 1st argument
// and int f(double) for the second
auto foo = () -> int (*)(int) {
return f; // selects int f(int)
};
auto p = static_cast<int(*)(int)>(f); // selects int f(int)
}
Michael Park adds:
It's not limited to initializing a concrete type, either. It could also infer just from the number of arguments
and provides this live example:
void overload(int, int) {}
void overload(int, int, int) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2,
typename A1, typename A2>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2), A1&&, A2&&) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2, typename T3,
typename A1, typename A2, typename A3>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2, T3), A1&&, A2&&, A3&&) {}
int main () {
f(&overload, 1, 2);
}
which I elaborate a little more here.
Stephan T. Lavavej explained the case he was talking about in a tweet:
The case I was thinking of is where you can take the address of an overloaded/templated function and if it’s being used to initialize a variable of a specific type, that will disambiguate which one you want. (There’s a list of what disambiguates.)
we can see examples of this from cppreference page on Address of overloaded function, I have excepted a few below:
int f(int) { return 1; }
int f(double) { return 2; }
void g( int(&f1)(int), int(*f2)(double) ) {}
int main(){
g(f, f); // selects int f(int) for the 1st argument
// and int f(double) for the second
auto foo = () -> int (*)(int) {
return f; // selects int f(int)
};
auto p = static_cast<int(*)(int)>(f); // selects int f(int)
}
Michael Park adds:
It's not limited to initializing a concrete type, either. It could also infer just from the number of arguments
and provides this live example:
void overload(int, int) {}
void overload(int, int, int) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2,
typename A1, typename A2>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2), A1&&, A2&&) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2, typename T3,
typename A1, typename A2, typename A3>
void f(void (*)(T1, T2, T3), A1&&, A2&&, A3&&) {}
int main () {
f(&overload, 1, 2);
}
which I elaborate a little more here.
edited Nov 13 at 14:12
answered Nov 12 at 23:51
Shafik Yaghmour
123k23306509
123k23306509
3
We could also describe this as: cases where the type of an expression depends on the context?
– M.M
Nov 12 at 23:56
add a comment |
3
We could also describe this as: cases where the type of an expression depends on the context?
– M.M
Nov 12 at 23:56
3
3
We could also describe this as: cases where the type of an expression depends on the context?
– M.M
Nov 12 at 23:56
We could also describe this as: cases where the type of an expression depends on the context?
– M.M
Nov 12 at 23:56
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
I believe in static casting of overloaded functions the flow goes the opposite direction as in usual overload resolution. So one of those is backwards, I guess.
5
I believe this is correct. And it is when you pass a function name to a function pointer type; type information flows from the context of the expression (the type you are assigning to/constructing/etc) backwards into the name of the function to determine which overload is chosen.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 12 at 22:08
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
I believe in static casting of overloaded functions the flow goes the opposite direction as in usual overload resolution. So one of those is backwards, I guess.
5
I believe this is correct. And it is when you pass a function name to a function pointer type; type information flows from the context of the expression (the type you are assigning to/constructing/etc) backwards into the name of the function to determine which overload is chosen.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 12 at 22:08
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
up vote
18
down vote
I believe in static casting of overloaded functions the flow goes the opposite direction as in usual overload resolution. So one of those is backwards, I guess.
I believe in static casting of overloaded functions the flow goes the opposite direction as in usual overload resolution. So one of those is backwards, I guess.
answered Nov 12 at 21:19
jbapple
2,6311630
2,6311630
5
I believe this is correct. And it is when you pass a function name to a function pointer type; type information flows from the context of the expression (the type you are assigning to/constructing/etc) backwards into the name of the function to determine which overload is chosen.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 12 at 22:08
add a comment |
5
I believe this is correct. And it is when you pass a function name to a function pointer type; type information flows from the context of the expression (the type you are assigning to/constructing/etc) backwards into the name of the function to determine which overload is chosen.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 12 at 22:08
5
5
I believe this is correct. And it is when you pass a function name to a function pointer type; type information flows from the context of the expression (the type you are assigning to/constructing/etc) backwards into the name of the function to determine which overload is chosen.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 12 at 22:08
I believe this is correct. And it is when you pass a function name to a function pointer type; type information flows from the context of the expression (the type you are assigning to/constructing/etc) backwards into the name of the function to determine which overload is chosen.
– Yakk - Adam Nevraumont
Nov 12 at 22:08
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53270242%2fwhen-does-type-information-flow-backwards-in-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
pattern matching partial specialization and destructuring assignments.
– v.oddou
Nov 13 at 5:11