Up to now I’ve had to write fairly plain C++ due to having to support a wide variety of environments and compilers, but we’ve recently finally gotten everything in place to support at least C++17 in most of our projects, so hey, it’s time to learn what I can do now!
Structured Bindings
One of the big new features is structured bindings, which can split an object apart into separate variables. It’s not really all that useful on just plain objects, you may as well just reference them by member name then, but it really shines in a few specific scenarios, like iterating over containers like maps, where you can do:
// Old way:
for(auto& iter : someMap)
{
if(iter.first == "something")
doStuff(iter.second);
}
// New way
for(auto& [key, value] : someMap)
{
if(key == "something")
doStuff(value);
}so you can give more meaningful names to the pair elements instead of ‘x.first’ and ‘x.second’, which has always irritated me. It’s a small thing, but anything that improves comprehensibility helps.
The other nice use is for handling multiple return values. Only having one return value from a function has always been a bit limiting; if you wanted a function to return multiple values, you had a few options with their own tradeoffs:
- Kludge it by passing in pointers or references as parameters and modify through them. This in turn meant that the caller had to pre-declare a variable for that parameter, which is also kind of ugly since it means either having an uninitialized variable or an unnecessary construction that’s going to get overwritten anyway.
- Return a struct containing multiple members. A viable option, but now you have to introduce a new type definition, which you may not want to do for a whole bunch of only-used-once types.
- Return a tuple. Also viable, but accessing tuple elements is kind of annoying since you have to either use std::get, or std::bind them to pre-existing variables, which runs into the pre-declared variable problem again.
Structured bindings help with the tuple case by breaking the tuple elements out into newly-declared variables, making them conveniently accessible by whatever name you want and avoiding the pre-declaration problem.
// old and busted:
bool someFunc(int& count, std::string& msg);
int count; // uninitialized
std::string msg; // unnecessary empty construction
bool success = someFunc(count, msg);
// new hotness:
std::tuple<bool,int,std::string> someFunc();
auto [success, count, msg] = someFunc();The downside is that the tuple elements are unnamed in the function prototype, which makes them a bit less self-documenting. If that’s important to you, returning a structure into structured bindings is also a viable option, where you can often use an IDE to see the order of members of the returned struct and their names.
Update: You could also return an unnamed struct defined within the function itself, so you don’t need to declare it separately. You can’t put the struct declaration in the function prototype, but you can work around this by returning ‘auto’. This should give you a multi-value return with names visible in an IDE. The downside is that you can’t really do this cross-module, since it needs to be able to deduce the return type. (Maybe if you put it in a C++20 module?)
auto someFunc()
{
struct { bool success; int count; std::string msg; } result;
...
return result;
}
...
auto [success, count, msg] = someFunc();Optional Values
One of the scenarios I started using structured bindings for was the common situation where a function had to return both an indication of whether it succeeded or not (e.g., a success/failure bool, or integer error code), and the actual information if it succeeded. The trouble when you’re returning a tuple though is that you always have to return all values in the tuple, even if the function failed, so what do you do for the other elements when you don’t have anything to return? You could return an empty or default-constructed object, but that’s still unnecessary work and not all types necessarily have sensible empty or default constructions.
That’s when I discovered std::optional, which can represent both an object and the lack of an object within a single variable, much like how you might have used ‘NULL’ as an “I am not returning an object” indicator back in ye old manual memory allocation days. The presence or lack of an object can also represent success or failure, so now I find myself often returning an std::optional and checking .has_value() instead of separately returning a bool and an object when it’s a simple success/failure result. If the failure state is more complicated or I need to return multiple pieces of information, then structured bindings may still be preferable.
It’s also been useful where a rule or policy may be enabled or disabled, and the presence or lack thereof of the value can represent whether it’s enabled or not. (Though if it can be dynamically enabled or disabled then this might not be appropriate since it doesn’t retain the value when ‘unset’.)
struct OptionalPasswordRules
{
std::optional<int> minLowercase;
...
};
if(rules.minLowercase.has_value())
{
// Lowercase rule is enabled, check it
if(countLower(password) < *rules.minLowercase)
...
}Initializing-if
Another new feature that’s been really useful is the initializing-if, where you can declare and assign a variable and test a condition within the if statement, instead of having to do it separately.
if(std::optional<Foo> val = myFunc(); val.has_value())
{
// We got a value from myFunc, do something with it
...
}
else
{
// myFunc failed, now what
}The advantage here is that the variable is scoped to the if and its blocks, avoiding the common problem of creating a variable that’s only going to be tested and used in an if statement and its blocks but that then lives on past that anyway.
Variant Types
This one is a bit more niche, but I’ve been doing a bunch of work with lists of name/value pairs where the values can be of mixed types, and std::variant makes it a lot easier to have containers of these mixed types. With stronger use of initializer lists and automatic type deduction, it’s even possible to do things like:
using VarType = std::variant<std::string,int,bool>;
std::string MakeJSON(const std::vector<std::pair<std::string, VarType>>& fields);
auto outStr = MakeJSON({ { "name", nameStr },
{ "age", user.age },
{ "admin", false } });and have it deduce and preserve the appropriate string/integer/bool type in the container.
String Views
I’ve talked about strings before, and C++17 helps make things a bit more efficient with the std::string_view type. If you use this as a parameter type for accepting strings in functions that don’t alter or take ownership of the string, both std::string and C-style strings are automatically and efficiently converted to it, so you don’t need multiple overloads for both types. It’s inherently const and compact, so you can just pass it by value instead of having to do the usual const reference. And it can represent substrings of another string without having to create a whole new copy of the string.
bool CheckString(std::string_view str)
{
// Many of the usual string operations are available
if(str.length() > 100) ...
// No allocation cost to these substr operations
if(str.substr(0, 3) == "xy:")
auto postPrefix = str.substr(3);
}
std::string foo("slfjsafsafdasddsad");
// A bit more awkward here since it has to build a string_view before
// doing the substr to avoid an allocation
CheckString(std::string_view(foo).substr(5, 3));
// Also works on literal strings
CheckString("xy:124.562,98.034");
The gotcha is that string_view objects cannot be assumed to be null-terminated like plain std::strings, so they’re not really usable in various situations where I really do need a C-compatible null-terminated string. Still, wherever possible I’m now trying to use string_view as the preferred parameter type for accepting strings.
A lot of this is fairly basic stuff that you’ll see in a million other tutorials around the net, but hey, typing all this out helps me internalize it…