Tags C & C++

There's an interesting issue one has to consider when mixing function overloading with templates in C++. The problem with templates is that they are usually overly inclusive, and when mixed with overloading, the result may be surprising:

void foo(unsigned i) {
  std::cout << "unsigned " << i << "\n";

template <typename T>
void foo(const T& t) {
  std::cout << "template " << t << "\n";

What do you think a call to foo(42) would print? The answer is "template 42", and the reason for this is that integer literals are signed by default (they only become unsigned with the U suffix). When the compiler examines the overload candidates to choose from for this call, it sees that the first function needs a conversion, while the second one matches perfectly, so that is the one it picks [1].

When the compiler looks at overload candidates that are templates, it has to actually perform substitution of explicitly specified or deduced types into the template arguments. This doesn't always result in sensical code, as the following example demonstrates; while artificial, it's representative of a lot of generic code written in modern C++:

int negate(int i) {
  return -i;

template <typename T>
typename T::value_type negate(const T& t) {
  return -T(t);

Consider a call to negate(42). It will pick up the first overload and return -42. However, while looking for the best overload, all candidates have to be considered. When the compiler considers the templated negate, it substitutes the deduced argument type of the call (int in this case) into the template, and comes up with the declaration:

int::value_type negate(const int& t);

This code is invalid, of course, since int has no member named value_type. So one could ask - should the compiler fail and emit an error message in this case? Well, no. If it did, writing generic code in C++ would be very difficult. In fact, the C++ standard has a special clause for such cases, explaining exactly how a compiler should behave.


In the latest draft of the C++11 standard, the relevant section is 14.8.2; it states that when a substitution failure, such as the one shown above, occurs, type deduction for this particular type fails. That's it. There's no error involved. The compiler simply ignores this candidate and looks at the others.

In the C++ folklore, this rule was dubbed "Substitution Failure Is Not An Error", or SFINAE.

The standard states:

If a substitution results in an invalid type or expression, type deduction fails. An invalid type or expression is one that would be ill-formed if written using the substituted arguments. Only invalid types and expressions in the immediate context of the function type and its template parameter types can result in a deduction failure.

And then goes on to list the possible scenarios that are deemed invalid, such as using a type that is not a class or enumeration type in a qualified name, attempting to create a reference to void, and so on.

But wait, what does it mean by the last sentence about "immediate context"? Consider this (non-sensical) example:

template <typename T>
void negate(const T& t) {
  typename T::value_type n = -t();

If type deduction matches this overload for some fundamental type, we'll actually get a compile error due to the T::value_type inside the function body. This is outside of the "immediate context of the function type and its template parameter types" mentioned by the standard. The lesson here is that if we want to write a template that only makes sense for some types, we must make it fail deduction for invalid types right in the declaration, to cause substitution failure. If the invalid type sneaks past the overload candidate selection phase, the program won't compile.

enable_if - a compile-time switch for templates

SFINAE has proved so useful that programmers started to explicitly rely on it very early on in the history of C++. One of the most notable tools used for this purpose is enable_if. It can be defined as follows:

template <bool, typename T = void>
struct enable_if

template <typename T>
struct enable_if<true, T> {
  typedef T type;

And now we can do things like [2]:

template <class T,
         typename std::enable_if<std::is_integral<T>::value,
                                 T>::type* = nullptr>
void do_stuff(T& t) {
  std::cout << "do_stuff integral\n";
    // an implementation for integral types (int, char, unsigned, etc.)

template <class T,
          typename std::enable_if<std::is_class<T>::value,
                                  T>::type* = nullptr>
void do_stuff(T& t) {
    // an implementation for class types

Note SFINAE at work here. When we make the call do_stuff(<int var>), the compiler selects the first overload: since the condition std::is_integral<int> is true, the specialization of struct enable_if for true is used, and its internal type is set to int. The second overload is omitted because without the true specialization (std::is_class<int> is false) the general form of struct enable_if is selected, and it doesn't have a type, so the type of the argument results in a substitution failure.

enable_if has been part of Boost for many years, and since C++11 it's also in the standard C++ library as std::enable_if. Its usage is somewhat verbose though, so C++14 adds this type alias for convenience:

template <bool B, typename T = void>
using enable_if_t = typename enable_if<B, T>::type;

With this, the examples above can be rewritten a bit more succinctly:

template <class T,
         typename std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral<T>::value>* = nullptr>
void do_stuff(T& t) {
    // an implementation for integral types (int, char, unsigned, etc.)

template <class T,
          typename std::enable_if_t<std::is_class<T>::value>* = nullptr>
void do_stuff(T& t) {
    // an implementation for class types

Uses of enable_if

enable_if is an extremely useful tool. There are hundreds of references to it in the C++11 standard template library. It's so useful because it's a key part in using type traits, a way to restrict templates to types that have certain properties. Without enable_if, templates are a rather blunt "catch-all" tool. If we define a function with a template argument, this function will be invoked on all possible types. Type traits and enable_if let us create different functions that act on different kinds of types, while still remaining generic [3].

One usage example I like is the two-argument constructor of std::vector:

// Create the vector {8, 8, 8, 8}
std::vector<int> v1(4, 8);

// Create another vector {8, 8, 8, 8}
std::vector<int> v2(std::begin(v1), std::end(v1));

// Create the vector {1, 2, 3, 4}
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
std::vector<int> v3(arr, arr + 4);

There are two forms of the two-argument constructor used here. Ignoring allocators, this is how these constructors could be declared:

template <typename T>
class vector {
    vector(size_type n, const T val);

    template <class InputIterator>
    vector(InputIterator first, InputIterator last);


Both constructors take two arguments, but the second one has the catch-all property of templates. Even though the template argument InputIterator has a descriptive name, it has no semantic meaning - the compiler wouldn't mind if it was called ARG42 or T. The problem here is that even for v1, the second constructor would be invoked if we didn't do something special. This is because the type of 4 is int rather than size_t. So to invoke the first constructor, the compiler would have to perform a type conversion. The second constructor would fit perfectly though.

So how does the library implementor avoid this problem and make sure that the second constructor is only called for iterators? By now we know the answer - with enable_if.

Here is how the second constructor is really defined:

template <class _InputIterator>
vector(_InputIterator __first,
       typename enable_if<__is_input_iterator<_InputIterator>::value &&
                          !__is_forward_iterator<_InputIterator>::value &&
                          ... more conditions ...
                          _InputIterator>::type __last);

It uses enable_if to only enable this overload for types that are input iterators, though not forward iterators. For forward iterators, there's a separate overload, because the constructors for these can be implemented more efficiently.

As I mentioned, there are many uses of enable_if in the C++11 standard library. The string::append method has a very similar use to the above, since it has several overloads that take two arguments and a template overload for iterators.

A somewhat different example is std::signbit, which is supposed to be defined for all arithmetic types (integer or floating point). Here's a simplified version of its declaration in the cmath header:

template <class T>
typename std::enable_if<std::is_arithmetic<T>, bool>::type
signbit(T x)
    // implementation

Without using enable_if, think about the options the library implementors would have. One would be to overload the function for each of the known arithmetic type. That's very verbose. Another would be to just use an unrestricted template. But then, had we actually passed a wrong type into it, say std::string, we'd most likely get a fairly obscure error at the point of use. With enable_if, we neither have to write boilerplate, nor to produce bad error messages. If we invoke std::signbit as defined above with a bad type we'll get a fairly helpful error saying that a suitable function cannot be found.

A more advanced version of enable_if

Admittedly, std::enable_if is clumsy, and even enable_if_t doesn't help much, though it's a bit less verbose. You still have to mix it into the declaration of a function in a way that often obscures the return type or an argument type. This is why some sources online suggest crafting more advanced versions that "get out of the way". Personally, I think this is the wrong tradeoff to make.

std::enable_if is a rarely used construct. So making it less verbose doesn't buy us much. On the other hand, making it more mysterious is detrimental, because every time we see it we have to think about how it works. The implementation shown here is fairly simple, and I'd keep it this way. Finally I'll note that the C++ standard library uses the verbose, "clumsy" version of std::enable_if without defining more complex versions. I think that's the right decision.

[1]If we had an overload for int, however, this is the one that would be picked, because in overload resolution non-templates are preferred over templates.
[2]Update 2018-07-05: Previously I had a version here which, while supported by earlier compilers, wasn't entirely standards-compliant. I've modified it to a slightly more complicated version that works with modern gcc and Clang. The trickiness here is due to do_stuff having the exact same signature in both cases; in this scenario we have to be careful about ensuring the compiler only infers a single version.
[3]Think of it as a mid-way between overloading and templates. C++ has another tool to implement something similar - runtime polymorphism. Type traits let us do that at compile time, without incurring any runtime cost.