Consider the following struct
with a user-defined conversion function that can convert itself to const char*
;
struct S {
operator const char*() { return "hello"; }
};
This work with <iostream>
, we can print the struct S
with no error message:
std::cout << S{} << '\n';
But if I change the return type to std::string
:
struct S {
operator std::string() { return "hello"; }
};
I got this compiler error message:
<source>:11:13: error: no match for 'operator<<' (operand types are 'std::ostream' {aka 'std::basic_ostream<char>'} and 'S')
11 | std::cout << S{} << '\n';
| ~~~~~~~~~ ^~ ~~~
| | |
| | S
| std::ostream {aka std::basic_ostream<char>}
<source>:11:18: note: 'S' is not derived from 'const std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>'
11 | std::cout << S{} << '\n';
| ^
Why can't the compiler use the std::string
conversion? Is there a difference between the conversion function of the built-in and class type?
Because operator<<
for std::basic_string
is a template taking 3 template parameters:
template <class CharT, class Traits, class Allocator> std::basic_ostream<CharT, Traits>& operator<<(std::basic_ostream<CharT, Traits>& os, const std::basic_string<CharT, Traits, Allocator>& str);
And implicit conversion won't be considered in template argument deduction:
Type deduction does not consider implicit conversions (other than type adjustments listed above): that's the job for overload resolution, which happens later.
Then given std::cout << S{};
, the template parameter CharT
, Traits
and Allocator
can't be deduced on the 2nd function argument.
On the other hand, operator<<
for const char*
doesn't have such issue; given std::cout << S{};
, the template parameter CharT
and Traits
would be deduced only from the 1st function argument. After deduction, the implicit conversion from S
to const char*
will be performed and the calling works well.