Skip to main content

Curiously Recurring Template Pattern (CRTP)

It is a C++ idiom in which inheritance and template type parameters are cleverly integrated to generate flexible types at compile-time. In CRTP, a template class inherits from its own template parameter. For example,

template <typename Base>
class MixinOne : public Base {};

This technique is also one of the ways of using "Mixins". Here class Mixin helps to "mix in" some useful functionality into any class type Base. For example, class Mixin can make class Base a singleton. Complete code example is here. In this case of CRTP, a hierarchy (a new class plus inheritance relationship) is created when Mixin template is instantiated. Thus hierarchy creation is differed till the instantiation of the template. This is pretty cool!

Moreover, CRTP can appear in a different fashion in which a class passes itself as a template parameter to its base class. For example,

class Derived: public MixinTwo<Derived> {};

The non-template class Derived inherits interface/structure (hopefully customized for itself) from Mixin class. In this case of CRTP, the class hierarchy is "created" when Derived class is coded unlike in the earlier case where, class hierarchy is "created" when template is instantiated.

This curious name to the idiom was given by James Coplien. Also see this for a complete example of the technique.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I can understand how the pattern works, but man it is one screwd-up programming technique, template programmers should really get out more and live life.
Anonymous said…
Kindly delete that above comment and this one to whomever owns this blog, that post was made by a coworker who is stumped at a programming problem, please, thanks.
Unknown said…
The article

Building More Flexible Types With Mixins
Applying the Curiously Recurring Template Pattern
By Christopher Diggins

http://devnet.developerpipeline.com/documents/s=9843/cuj0601diggins/

is now at:

http://www.ddj.com/cpp/184402056

Cheers

Popular Content

Want speed? Use constexpr meta-programming!

It's official: C++11 has two meta-programming languages embedded in it! One is based on templates and other one using constexpr . Templates have been extensively used for meta-programming in C++03. C++11 now gives you one more option of writing compile-time meta-programs using constexpr . The capabilities differ, however. The meta-programming language that uses templates was discovered accidently and since then countless techniques have been developed. It is a pure functional language which allows you to manipulate compile-time integral literals and types but not floating point literals. Most people find the syntax of template meta-programming quite abominable because meta-functions must be implemented as structures and nested typedefs. Compile-time performance is also a pain point for this language feature. The generalized constant expressions (constexpr for short) feature allows C++11 compiler to peek into the implementation of a function (even classes) and perform optimization...

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together. It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array? int native[3][4]; std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr; No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is: std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr; That's quite annoying for...

Rvalue references in constructor: when less is more

I've seen a recurring mistake made by well-versed C++03 programmers when they set out to use rvalue references for the first time. In fact, as it turns out, better you are at C++03, easier it is to fall in the trap of rvalue reference anti-pattern I'm gonna talk about. Consider the following C++03 class: class Book { public: Book(const std::string & title, const std::vector<std::string> & authors, const std::string & pub, size_t pub_day const std::string & pub_month, size_t pub_year) : _title(title), _authors(authors), _publisher(pub), _pub_day(pub_day), _pub_month(pub_month), _pub_year(pub_year) {} // .... // .... private: std::string _title; std::vector<std::string> _authors; std::string _publisher; size_t _pub_day; std::string _pub_month; size_t _pub_year; }; The Book class above is as dull as it can be. Now lets C++11'fy it!...