The following code work exactly the same no matter I use the keyword typename or class.
What are the differences between these keywords when used to define generic functions?Code:template < typename my_type > my_type fun( my_type arg1, my_type arg2 ) { return arg1 + arg2; }
Last edited by Antigloss; 09-02-2005 at 08:12 AM.
As far as I know, there is no difference for this use. I have read of a coding style convention that uses class for template parameters that are strictly user defined, and typename for those that can take primitive types.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
As laserlight says, in the example given, there is no difference between using typename or class keywords.
There are cases when typename is necessary (and the class keyword can't be used instead), such as;
This is an error, as the compiler (when it parses this bit of code) has no way of working out if T::A is a type or if it is something else. In this example, T::A(b) might be a call of a function named T::A, passing a global named b as an argument. It might also be (in an allowed, but rarely used form) a declaration of a variable b that is of type T::A. The basic point is that it is difficult for a compiler to make the distinction when parsing template code --- the point it will have that information comes later, when the template is instantiated (i.e. used for a particular type T, in this example). The typename keyword is used to avoid confusing the compiler at a point where it has insufficient information;Code:template<class T> class Y { T::A(b); // error };
which tells the parser that T::A will be (for some class T) a type, so the declaration is of something named b.Code:template<class T> class Y { typename T::A(b); // error };
The only difference I've found is when you declare a template template:What are the differences between these keywords when used to define generic functions?
In this code, class is not interchangeable with typename, and if you try then it won't compile:Code:// Works fine template <template <typename T> class U> void foo() { }
Code:// Won't compile template <template <typename T> typename U> void foo() { }
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
A side note on grumpy's:
Consider:
It is clear that you want the type my_traits<foo>::char_t* to be typedef'd as ptr_t, but the compiler seeing this, will think that my_traits<foo>::char_t is a static member of the class (even in cases for which this makes no sense, the compiler has no way of really knowing this).Code:struct foo { typedef my_traits<foo>::char_t* ptr_t; };
Typename helps it along:
Code:struct foo { typedef typename my_traits<foo>::char_t* ptr_t; };
The word rap as it applies to music is the result of a peculiar phonological rule which has stripped the word of its initial voiceless velar stop.
