What is the difference between static_cast and Implicit_cast?

Question

What is implicit_cast? when should I prefer implicit_cast rather than static_cast?

Answer 1

I'm copying over from a comment i made to answer this comment at another place.

You can down-cast with static_cast. Not so with implicit_cast. static_cast basically allows you to do any implicit conversion, and in addition the reverse of any implicit conversion (up to some limits. you can't downcast if there is a virtual base-class involved). But implicit_cast will only accept implicit conversions. no down-cast, no void*->T*, no U->T if T has only explicit constructors for U.

Note that it's important to note the difference between a cast and a conversion. In the following no cast is going on

int a = 3.4;

But an implicit conversion happens from double to int. Things like an "implicit cast" don't exist, since a cast is always an explicit conversion request. The name construct for boost::implicit_cast is a lovely combination of "cast using implicit conversions". Now the whole implementation of boost::implicit_cast is this (explained here):

template<typename T> struct identity { typedef T type; };
template<typename Dst> Dst implicit_cast(typename identity<Dst>::type t)
{ return t; }

The idea is to use a non-deduced context for the parameter t. That will avoid pitfalls like the following:

call_const_version(implicit_cast(this)); // oops, wrong!

What was desired is to write it out like this

call_const_version(implicit_cast<MyClass const*>(this)); // right!

The compiler can't deduce what type the template parameter Dst should name, because it first must know what identity<Dst> is, since it is part of the parameter used for deduction. But it in turn depends on the parameter Dst (identity could be explicitly specialized for some types). Now, we got a circular dependency, for which the Standard just says such a parameter is a non-deduced context, and an explicit template-argument must be provided.

Answer 2

Prefer implcit_cast if it is enough in your situation. implicit_cast is less powerful and safer than static_cast.

For example, downcasting from a base pointer to a derived pointer is possible with static_cast but not with implicit_cast. The other way around is possible with both casts. Then, when casting from a base to a derived class, use implicit_cast, because it keeps you safe if you confuse both classes.

Also keep in mind that implicit_cast is often not needed. Using no cast at all works most of the time when implicit_cast does, that's where 'implicit' comes from. implicit_cast is only needed in special circumstances in which the type of an expression must be exactly controlled, to avoid an overload, for example.