pass function by value (?) instead of function pointer?

Question

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I was unable to find it.

So im trying to educate myself about templates and the new C++11 features (mainly lambdas, something I always liked in other languages).

But in my tests I came to something I had no idea it worked, and I'm trying to understand how it works but cant figure it out..

The following code:

template <class Func>
void Test( Func callback ) {
    callback( 3 );
}

void Callback( int i ) {
    std::cout << i << std::endl;
}

int main( int argc, char** argv ) {
    Test( &Callback ); // this I was expecting to work, compiler will see its a pointer to a function
    Test( Callback ); // this also works, but how?!
    return 0;
}

If I understand how templates work, basically they're a scheme for the compiler to know what to build, so the first call Test( &Callback ); I was expecting to work because the compiler will see the template receives a function address and will assume the arguments should be a pointer.

But what is the second call? What is the template assuming it is? A copy of a functio (if that even makes any sense)?

score 18 · Accepted Answer · edited May 23 '17 at 12:16

18

A function is implicitly convertible to a pointer to itself; this conversion happens pretty much everywhere. Test(Callback) is exactly the same as Test(&Callback). There is no difference. In both cases, Func is deduced to be void(*)(int).

Function pointers are weird. You can find out more about them in "Why do all these crazy function pointer definitions all work?"

edited May 23 '17 at 12:16

Community

1
1

answered Aug 18 '11 at 17:03

James McNellis

348,265
75
913
977

thanks for the answer. so if i didnt use templates and declared Test like: void Test( void (*callback)(int) ){...} both calls would work as well. thats good to know. ill make sure i read the thread you linked. – sap Aug 18 '11 at 17:11
Why does `Test( &Callback );` work? Is a function pointer also implicitly convertible to its "value type"? – palapapa Dec 27 '22 at 16:21

score 3 · Answer 2 · answered Aug 18 '11 at 17:21

3

Functions are implicitly convertible to function pointers. If fact there is no way to get a function value or reference. Though oddly you can create a function value type, you just can't assign anything to it.

Here is code snippit that demonstrates how lambdas and various callbacks react with templates.

answered Aug 18 '11 at 17:21

deft_code

57,255
29
141
224

This is wrong. Function references are fine. If `Test` were declared as `void Test( Func &callback )`, then `Func` would be deduced to `void(int)`, and `Callback` would be passed by reference, without being converted to a pointer, to `Test`. – Johannes Schaub - litb Aug 29 '11 at 19:28
Wow! I guess it make sense that reference should be supported as well as pointers since they are so similar. Is it possible to declare a function value, and assign something to it? – deft_code Aug 30 '11 at 15:54
@deft I don't know what that means. What's a "function value"? – Johannes Schaub - litb Aug 30 '11 at 17:51

score 2 · Answer 3 · answered Aug 18 '11 at 17:08

2

In C++, functions are not first-class objects, which means “function as value” makes no sense in it. That's why function name has always been implicitly convertible to pointer to it.

answered Aug 18 '11 at 17:08

hamstergene

24,039
5
57
72

Maybe it's worth noting than there are languages where “function by value” does make sense. – hamstergene Aug 18 '11 at 17:08

score 0 · Answer 4 · answered Oct 20 '11 at 08:47

In C++ 11 (and boost and tr1) we have std::function as a template type for storing functors, lambdas and functions. So you can definitely have the concept of keeping a function value in a variable of type std::function. that variable can also be "empty" meaning that no function (reference) is stored in it. Then it cannot be called.

The original question relates to that in contrast to C, C++ allows function references. Plus, for compatibility reasons with C a function name can degenerate to a function pointer. But because of overloading things are more "interesting" in C++ than in C.

pass function by value (?) instead of function pointer?

4 Answers4

Linked