Should I still return const objects in C++11? [duplicate]

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Should I return const objects?
(The original title of that question was: int foo() or const int foo()? explaining why I missed it.)

---

Effective C++, Item 3: Use const whenever possible. In particular, returning const objects is promoted to avoid unintended assignment like if (a*b = c) {. I find it a little paranoid, nevertheless I have been following this advice.

It seems to me that returning const objects can degrade performance in C++11.

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

class C {
public:
    C() : v(nullptr) { }

    C& operator=(const C& other) {
        cout << "copy" << endl;
        // copy contents of v[]
        return *this;
    }

    C& operator=(C&& other) {
        cout << "move" << endl;
        v = other.v, other.v = nullptr;
        return *this;
    }

private:
    int* v;
};

const C const_is_returned() { return C(); }

C nonconst_is_returned() { return C(); }

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
    C c;
    c = const_is_returned();
    c = nonconst_is_returned();
    return 0;
}

This prints:

copy
move

Do I implement the move assignment correctly? Or I simply shouldn't return const objects anymore in C++11?

Answer 1

Returning const objects is a workaround that might cause other problems. Since C++11, there is a better solution for the assignment issue: Reference Qualifiers for member functions. I try to explain it with some code:

int foo(); // function declaration foo() = 42; // ERROR 

The assignment in the second line results in a compile-time error for the builtin type int in both C and C++. Same for other builtin types. That's because the assignment operator for builtin types requires a non-const lvalue-reference on the left hand side. To put it in code, the assignment operator might look as follows (invalid code):

int& operator=(int& lhs, const int& rhs); 

It was always possible in C++ to restrict parameters to lvalue references. However, that wasn't possible until C++11 for the implicit first parameter of member functions (*this).

That changed with C++11: Similar to const qualifiers for member functions, there are now reference qualifiers for member functions. The following code shows the usage on the copy and move operators (note the & after the parameter list):

struct Int {     Int(const Int& rhs) = default;     Int(Int&& rhs) noexcept = default;     ~Int() noexcept = default;     auto operator=(const Int& rhs) & -> Int& = default;     auto operator=(Int&& rhs) & noexcept -> Int& = default; }; 

With this class declaration, the assignment expression in the following code fragment is invalid, whereas assigning to a local variable works - as it was in the first example.

Int bar(); Int baz(); bar() = baz(); // ERROR: no viable overloaded '=' 

So there is no need to return const objects. You can restrict the assigment operators to lvalue references, so that everything else still works as expected - in particular move operations.

See also:

• What is "rvalue reference for *this"?

Answer 2

Returning a const object by value arguably was never a very good idea, even before C++11. The only effect it has is that it prevents the caller from calling non-const functions on the returned object – but that is not very relevant given that the caller received a copy of the object anyway.

While it is true that being returned a constant object prevents the caller from using it wrongly (e.g. mistakenly making an assignment instead of a comparison), it shouldn't be the responsibility of a function to decide how the caller can use the object returned (unless the returned object is a reference or pointer to structures the function owns). The function implementer cannot possibly know whether the object returned will be used in a comparison or for something else.

You are also right that in C++11 the problem is even graver, as returning a const effectively prevents move operations. (It does not prevent copy/move elision, though.)

Of course it is equally important to point out that const is still extremely useful (and using it no sign of paranoia) when the function returns a reference or a pointer.

Answer 3

The reason that your call to const_is_returned triggers copy constructor rather than move constructor is the fact that move must modify the object thus it can't be used on const objects. I tend to say that using const isn't advised in any case and should be subjected to a programmer judgement, otherwise you get the things you demonstrated. Good question.