Type erasure based on templates is a pretty sophisticated technique. It bridges dynamic polymorphism (object orientation) with static polymorphism (templates).
First: What does type erasure mean?
- Type Erasure: Type Erasure enables using various concrete types through a single generic interface.
You already quite often used type erasure in C++ or C. The C-ish type erasure is a void pointer; object orientation is the classical C++-ish way of type erasure. Let’s start with a
Let’s have a closer look at the declaration of
The comparison function
cmp should return a
- negative integer: the first argument is less than the second
- zero: both arguments are equal
- positive integer: the first argument is greater than the second
Thanks to the
std::qsort is generally applicable but also quite error-prone.
Maybe you want to sort a
std::vector<int>, but you used a comparator for C-strings. The compiler can not catch this error because the necessary type information is missing. Consequentially, you end with undefined behavior.
In C++, we can do better:
Here is a straightforward example, which serves as a starting point for further variation.
std::vector<const Base*> (line 1) has a pointer to a constant
BaseClass is an abstract base class used in line (3).
Bar (line 4) are the concrete classes.
The output of the program is as expected.
To say it more formally.
Bar implement the interface of the
BaseClass and can, therefore, be used instead of BaseClass
. This principle is called Liskov substitution principle and is type erasure in OO.
In object-orientated programming, you implement an interface. In generic programmings, such as templates, you are not interested in interfaces; you are interested in behavior. In my previous post, “Dynamic and Static Polymorphism“, read more about the difference between interface-driven and behavior-driven design.
Type erasure with templates bridges the gap between dynamic polymorphism and static polymorphism.
Let me start with a prominent example of type erasure:
std::function is a polymorphic function wrapper. It can accept everything that behaves like a function. To be more precise. This everything can be any callable such as a function, a function object, a function object created by
std::bind, or just a lambda expression.
In this example, I use a dispatch table (line 1) that maps characters to callables. A callable can be a function (line 1), a function object (lines 2 and 3), a function object created by
std::bind (line 4), or a lambda expression (line 5). The key point of
std::function is that it accepts all different function-like types and erases their types.
std::function requires from its callable that it takes two
double's and returns a
double: std::function<double(double, double)>.
To complete the example, here is the output.
After this first introduction to type erasure, I want to implement the program
typeErasureOO.cpp using type erasure based on templates.
Okay, what is happening here? Don’t be irritated by the names
Model. They are typically used for type erasure in the literature. So I stick with them.
std::vector uses instances (line 1) of type
Object (line 2) and not pointers, such as in the first OO example. These instances can be created with arbitrary types because they have a generic constructor (line 3).
Object has the member function
getName (4) that directly forwards to the
object is of type
std::shared_ptr<const Concept>. The member function
Concept is pure virtual (line 5). Therefore, the
getName member function of
Model (line 6) is used due to virtual dispatch. The
getName member functions of
Foo (line 8) are applied in the
printName function (line 7).
Of course, this implementation is type-safe. So what happens in case of an error:
Here is the incorrect implementation:
I renamed the method
get (line 1) and to
get_name (line 2).
All three compilers, g++, clang++, and MS compiler cl.exe, come directly to the point.
What are the pros and cons of these three techniques for type erasure?
Pros and Cons
void Pointers are the C-ish way to provide one interface for different types. They give you complete flexibility. You don’t need a base class; they are easy to implement. On the contrary, you lose all type information and, therefore, type safety.
Object orientation is the C++-is way to provide one interface for different types. If you are accustomed to object-orientated programming, this is your typical way to design software systems. OO is challenging to implement but type-safe. It requires an interface and publicly derived implementations.
Type erasure is a type-safe generic way to provide one interface for different types. The different types don’t need a common base class and are unrelated. Type erasure is pretty sophisticated to implement.
I ignored one point in my comparison: performance. Object orientation and type erasure are based on virtual inheritance. Consequentially, there is one pointer indirection happening at run time. Does this mean object orientation and type erasure is slower than the void Pointer? I’m not sure. You have to measure it in the concrete use case. When you use a void Pointer, you lose all type information. Therefore, the compiler can not make assumptions about the used types and generate optimized code. The performance questions can only be answered with a performance test.
I wrote almost 50 posts about templates in the last year. During that time, I learned a lot more about C++20. Therefore, I continue to write about C++20 and peek into the next C++ standard: C++23.
Thanks a lot to my Patreon Supporters: Matt Braun, Roman Postanciuc, Tobias Zindl, G Prvulovic, Reinhold Dröge, Abernitzke, Frank Grimm, Sakib, Broeserl, António Pina, Sergey Agafyin, Андрей Бурмистров, Jake, GS, Lawton Shoemake, Jozo Leko, John Breland, Venkat Nandam, Jose Francisco, Douglas Tinkham, Kuchlong Kuchlong, Robert Blanch, Truels Wissneth, Kris Kafka, Mario Luoni, Friedrich Huber, lennonli, Pramod Tikare Muralidhara, Peter Ware, Daniel Hufschläger, Alessandro Pezzato, Bob Perry, Satish Vangipuram, Andi Ireland, Richard Ohnemus, Michael Dunsky, Leo Goodstadt, John Wiederhirn, Yacob Cohen-Arazi, Florian Tischler, Robin Furness, Michael Young, Holger Detering, Bernd Mühlhaus, Matthieu Bolt, Stephen Kelley, Kyle Dean, Tusar Palauri, Dmitry Farberov, Juan Dent, George Liao, Daniel Ceperley, Jon T Hess, Stephen Totten, Wolfgang Fütterer, Matthias Grün, Phillip Diekmann, Ben Atakora, Ann Shatoff, Rob North, Bhavith C Achar, Marco Parri Empoli, moon, and Philipp Lenk.
Thanks, in particular, to Jon Hess, Lakshman, Christian Wittenhorst, Sherhy Pyton, Dendi Suhubdy, Sudhakar Belagurusamy, Richard Sargeant, Rusty Fleming, John Nebel, Mipko, Alicja Kaminska, Slavko Radman, and David Poole.
|My special thanks to Embarcadero|
|My special thanks to PVS-Studio|
|My special thanks to Tipi.build|
|My special thanks to Take Up Code|
|My special thanks to SHAVEDYAKS|
I’m happy to give online seminars or face-to-face seminars worldwide. Please call me if you have any questions.
- Embedded Programmierung mit modernem C++ 12.12.2023 – 14.12.2023 (Präsenzschulung, Termingarantie)
Standard Seminars (English/German)
Here is a compilation of my standard seminars. These seminars are only meant to give you a first orientation.
- C++ – The Core Language
- C++ – The Standard Library
- C++ – Compact
- C++11 and C++14
- Concurrency with Modern C++
- Design Pattern and Architectural Pattern with C++
- Embedded Programming with Modern C++
- Generic Programming (Templates) with C++
- Clean Code with Modern C++
- Phone: +49 7472 917441
- Mobil:: +49 176 5506 5086
- Mail: schulung@ModernesCpp.de
- German Seminar Page: www.ModernesCpp.de
- Mentoring Page: www.ModernesCpp.org
Modernes C++ Mentoring,