ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

Difference of keywords 'typename' and 'class' in templates?

For templates I have seen both declarations:

template < typename T >
template < class T >

What's the difference?

And what exactly do those keywords mean in the following example (taken from the German Wikipedia article about templates)?

template < template < typename, typename > class Container, typename Type >
class Example
{
     Container< Type, std::allocator < Type > > baz;
};

H
Hedede

typename and class are interchangeable in the basic case of specifying a template:

template<class T>
class Foo
{
};

and

template<typename T>
class Foo
{
};

are equivalent.

Having said that, there are specific cases where there is a difference between typename and class.

The first one is in the case of dependent types. typename is used to declare when you are referencing a nested type that depends on another template parameter, such as the typedef in this example:

template<typename param_t>
class Foo
{
    typedef typename param_t::baz sub_t;
};

The second one you actually show in your question, though you might not realize it:

template < template < typename, typename > class Container, typename Type >

When specifying a template template, the class keyword MUST be used as above -- it is not interchangeable with typename in this case (note: since C++17 both keywords are allowed in this case).

You also must use class when explicitly instantiating a template:

template class Foo<int>;

I'm sure that there are other cases that I've missed, but the bottom line is: these two keywords are not equivalent, and these are some common cases where you need to use one or the other.


That last one is pretty much a special case of the fact that you must use class or struct, not typename, to define a class. Obviously neither of your first two bits of code could be replaced with template <typename T> typename Foo {};, because Foo<T> is most definitely a class.
std::vector<int>::value_type is not a dependent type, you don't need typename there - you only need it if a type depends on a template parameter, say template<class T> struct C { typedef typename std::vector<T>::value_type type; };
And again, param_t is not a dependent type. Dependent types are names that are dependent on a template parameter, e.g. foo<param_t>::some_type, not template parameters themselves.
A C++1z proposal N4051 will allow you to use typename, i.e. template <typename> typename C.
As of GCC 5, G++ now allows typename in a template template parameter.
V
Victor2748

For naming template parameters, typename and class are equivalent. §14.1.2:

There is no semantic difference between class and typename in a template-parameter.

typename however is possible in another context when using templates - to hint at the compiler that you are referring to a dependent type. §14.6.2:

A name used in a template declaration or definition and that is dependent on a template-parameter is assumed not to name a type unless the applicable name lookup finds a type name or the name is qualified by the keyword typename.

Example:

typename some_template<T>::some_type

Without typename the compiler can't tell in general whether you are referring to a type or not.


I understand the rule, but what exactly prevents the compiler from treating some_template as a type internally? Sorry if I am missing something obvious.
@batbrat Here is the elaborate answer on that topic. E.g., some_template<T>::something * p; may be a pointer declaration or multiplication.
Thanks @AlexChe I'll go through the link!
M
Michael Anderson

While there is no technical difference, I have seen the two used to denote slightly different things.

For a template that should accept any type as T, including built-ins (such as an array )

template<typename T>
class Foo { ... }

For a template that will only work where T is a real class.

template<class T>
class Foo { ... }

But keep in mind that this is purely a style thing some people use. Not mandated by the standard or enforced by compilers


I don't blame you for mentioning it, but I think this policy is pretty misguided, since programmers end up taking time thinking about something that doesn't matter ("have I used the right one?") to indicate something that doesn't matter ("does there exist a built-in type which implements the interface required of this template parameter?"). If any members of the template parameter are used (T t; int i = t.toInt();) then you need a "real class", and your code won't compile if you supply int for T...
If you want to limit the use to actual classes, you're better off adding a specialization to throw/cause an error for non-class types. If you want to limit use to particular classes, only specialize for them. In any case, such a stylistic distinction is too subtle to get the message across.
Since they meant the same thing, please use just one. Otherwise, it's like using inline {, unless it's a Tuesday, and then you using next-line {.
+1 I do this myself sometimes... class implies that you're not just expecting a "value" perhaps supporting some operators, copy or move construction and/or assignment, but specifically need a type supporting some member-access semantics. The quickest glance at the declaration then sets expectations and discourages e.g. supplying built-in types for class parameters when that would certainly be an error.
I'd like to understand what kinds of real-world situations exist where a template would work for ANY class, but would not work with built-in types. Do you have an example?
N
Nikolai Fetissov

No difference Template type parameter Container is itself a template with two type parameters.


there is a difference in general.
could those two parameters the container is templated with also be named? in the example they don't have any names. And also - in this example it's written 'class Container' - could there also be written 'typename Container' instead?
@Mat: yes, the term to search for is template template parameters/arguments. E.g.: template<template<class U> class V> struct C {};
K
K.K

This piece of snippet is from c++ primer book. Although I am sure this is wrong.

Each type parameter must be preceded by the keyword class or typename:

// error: must precede U with either typename or class
template <typename T, U> T calc(const T&, const U&);

These keywords have the same meaning and can be used interchangeably inside a template parameter list. A template parameter list can use both keywords:

// ok: no distinction between typename and class in a template parameter list
template <typename T, class U> calc (const T&, const U&);

It may seem more intuitive to use the keyword typename rather than class to designate a template type parameter. After all, we can use built-in (nonclass) types as a template type argument. Moreover, typename more clearly indicates that the name that follows is a type name. However, typename was added to C++ after templates were already in widespread use; some programmers continue to use class exclusively


u
user438383

There is no difference between using <typename T> OR <class T>; i.e. it is a convention used by C++ programmers. I myself prefer <typename T> as it more clearly describes its use; i.e. defining a template with a specific type.

Note: There is one exception where you do have to use class (and not typename) when declaring a template template parameter:

template <template <typename> class    T> class C { }; // valid!

template <template <typename> typename T> class C { }; // invalid!

In most cases, you will not be defining a nested template definition, so either definition will work -- just be consistent in your use.


Both definitions are valid as of C++17