Explicit bool operator - cannot return, test, initialize bool

Question

I just tried to use explicit operator bool() for the first time and its behavior is quite unexpected to me. Can someone please shed some light on why the following sections marked with // does not work.

The convertible class would e.g. be a smart pointer class with the ability to check for the validity of the contained data.

struct convertible
{
  explicit operator bool() const
  {
    return ptr;
  }

  void* ptr = nullptr;
};

bool testReturn()
{
  convertible test;
  // does not work
  return test;
}

bool testReturn2()
{
  convertible test;
  // does not work
  return test == true;
}

bool testReturn3()
{
  convertible test;
  // works ?!
  return !test;
}

int main()
{
  convertible test;
  // works
  if (test) { }
  // works
  bool init(test);
  bool tested = test;
  bool tested2 = testReturn();
  bool tested3 = testReturn2();
  bool tested4 = testReturn3();
  return 0;
}

With GCC I get:

milian@minime:/tmp$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 4.8.2 20131219 (prerelease)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

milian@minime:/tmp$ g++ -std=c++11 test.cpp 
test.cpp: In function ‘bool testReturn()’:
test.cpp:15:10: error: cannot convert ‘convertible’ to ‘bool’ in return
  return test;
          ^
test.cpp: In function ‘bool testReturn2()’:
test.cpp:22:15: error: no match for ‘operator==’ (operand types are ‘convertible’ and ‘bool’)
  return test == true;
              ^
test.cpp:22:15: note: candidate is:
test.cpp:22:15: note: operator==(int, int) <built-in>
test.cpp:22:15: note:   no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘convertible’ to ‘int’
test.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cpp:39:17: error: cannot convert ‘convertible’ to ‘bool’ in initialization
  bool tested = test;

With Clang it's similar:

milian@minime:/tmp$ clang++ --version
clang version 3.4 (tags/RELEASE_34/final)
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
milian@minime:/tmp$ clang++ -std=c++11 test.cpp 
test.cpp:15:10: error: no viable conversion from 'convertible' to 'bool'
  return test;
        ^~~~
test.cpp:22:15: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('convertible' and 'int')
  return test == true;
        ~~~~ ^  ~~~~
test.cpp:39:8: error: no viable conversion from 'convertible' to 'bool'
  bool tested = test;
      ^        ~~~~
3 errors generated.

Manu343726 · Accepted Answer · 2014-01-25 13:41:54Z

3

If your goal is to disable certain conversions, just disable them through the delete specifier:

struct convertible
{
    operator bool() const //(Implicit) Conversion to bool allowed
    {
        return true;
    }

    operator int() const = delete; //Implicit/Explicit conversions to int disallowed 
                                   //(Results in compilation error).
};


int main()
{
    convertible c;

    if( c )
        ...

    int a = c; //ERROR
    int b = (int)c; //ERROR (The same for static_cast<int>(c) )
}

You could also delete all types except which are explicitly overloaded using a templated version of the conversion operator:

struct foo
{
    operator bool() const //Explicit overload for bool
    {
       return true; 
    }

  template<typename T>
  operator T() const = delete; //Everithing which is not a bool (Everithing which  
                               //does not fit in the explicit overload) would  
                               //resolve to this operator and will fail.
};


int main()
{
    foo f;

    bool b = f; //OK
    int i = f;  //ERROR
    char c = f; //ERROR
    etc...
}

edited Jan 25, 2014 at 13:41

answered Jan 25, 2014 at 13:34

Manu343726

14.2k4 gold badges44 silver badges79 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

3 Comments

milianw Over a year ago

Awesome - that's just what I want! What's odd though is that this still doesn't work as expected: foo f; f == true; It apparently tries to convert with an int here?

Manu343726 Over a year ago

@milianw First: Don't write conitionals like if( f == true ). Just write if( f ). == true is redundant. BTW true and false keywords are defined as integers? LOL. Just don't write == true

Manu343726 Over a year ago

@milianw I have posted a question about the topic. Seems like boolean comparisons are promoted to integral comparisons, so in the case of a user defined conversion vs bool comparison the integer conversion is requested.

Paul Evans · Accepted Answer · 2014-01-25 13:13:36Z

0

If your cast operator is explicit, you need to cast it, something like:

return static_cast<bool>(test);

answered Jan 25, 2014 at 13:13

Paul Evans

27.7k3 gold badges41 silver badges56 bronze badges

2 Comments

milianw Over a year ago

Yes, I know it's explicit. I want to disallow conversions to anything but bool - i.e. the implicit upcasting of bool to int is what I'd expect to see forbidden. Yet a conversion to bool should be just fine, no? Put differently: What's the difference between bool a = convertible; and if (convertible) - both should convert to bool just fine, no?

David Rodríguez - dribeas Over a year ago

A bit simpler than static_cast could be bool(test). @milianw: The standard explicitly states that when used as a condition it will use an explicit conversion operator. The aim is to support explicit operator bool() const in things like istream, rather than resorting to the good old safe bool idiom.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Explicit bool operator - cannot return, test, initialize bool

2 Answers 2

3 Comments

2 Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

3 Comments

2 Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related