Skip to main content

Why overloaded ++ operator signatures are different?

The canonical form of overloaded pre-increment and post-increment
operators for class Foo are declared in the following way in C++.

/// Preincrement operator
Foo & operator++ (void);

/// Postincrement operator
const Foo operator++ (int);

The int in the post-increment operator is obviously to disambiguate
between post and pre forms of the operator. Then, why is the return type
different? As many other C++ features, this one also has a subtle
meaning!

In C++, for ints, you can write

++i = k;

but not,

i++ = k;

This is because, i++ results in a Rvalue to which you can't assign.
Unlike i++, ++i results in a Lvalue to which you can assign which
is infact ( incremented ) i itself. Not that ++i = k; has a great
importance, but it is a fact that C++ has been designed that way.
I would be interested in knowing the reason. One reason is that
i++ = k; is not allowed is that it is just ambiguous.
but ++i = k; is not ambiguous.

A const in the return type is also required to disallow passing
the return value of i++ to a function taking non-const parameters
by reference. e.g. bar (Foo &); .... bar (f++); The return value of
f++ (which is f) is not supposed to last beyond the function call.

Therefore, in C++ these semantics of basic types should be followed by user-defined types.

Unless you declare pre-increment operator to return a reference to *this
it will not completely mimic the above basic type semantics. It is quite
important to preserve the basic type semantics when you overload these
opertors because the client and the compiler expect that you indeed preserved them.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is also a gotcha for people coming to C++ from C. In C both the pre and post increment operators result in lvalues
Sumant said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
>> Anonymous said...
>> This is also a gotcha for
>> people coming to C++ from C.
>> In C both the pre and post
>> increment operators result in
>> lvalues

Then why does the following c code fail to compile?

int main()
{
int m,l;
m++ = l;
}
Sumant said…
Oh! You are right. It does not compile. Similarly, ++m = l; also fails to compile on gcc but succeeds on g++.

Popular posts from this blog

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 two r…

Covariance and Contravariance in C++ Standard Library

Covariance and Contravariance are concepts that come up often as you go deeper into generic programming. While designing a language that supports parametric polymorphism (e.g., templates in C++, generics in Java, C#), the language designer has a choice between Invariance, Covariance, and Contravariance when dealing with generic types. C++'s choice is "invariance". Let's look at an example.
struct Vehicle {}; struct Car : Vehicle {}; std::vector<Vehicle *> vehicles; std::vector<Car *> cars; vehicles = cars; // Does not compile The above program does not compile because C++ templates are invariant. Of course, each time a C++ template is instantiated, the compiler creates a brand new type that uniquely represents that instantiation. Any other type to the same template creates another unique type that has nothing to do with the earlier one. Any two unrelated user-defined types in C++ can't be assigned to each-other by default. You have to provide a c…

Inheritance vs std::variant

C++17 added std::variant and std::visit in its repertoire. They are worth a close examination. I've been wondering about whether they are always better than inheritance for modeling sum-types (fancy name for discriminated unions) and if not, under what circumstances they are not. We'll compare the two approaches in this blog post. So here it goes.

Inheritancestd::variantNeed not know all the derived types upfront (open-world assumption)Must know all the cases upfront (closed-world assumption)Dynamic Allocation (usually)No dynamic allocationIntrusive (must inherit from the base class)Non-intrusive (third-party classes can participate)Reference semantics (think how you copy a vector of pointers to base class?)Value semantics (copying is trivial)Algorithm scattered into classesAlgorithm in one placeLanguage supported (Clear errors if pure-virtual is not implemented)Library supported (poor error messages)Creates a first-class abstractionIt’s just a containerKeeps fluent interfaces…