cast<int>(x) instead of (int)x?
I've heard that the static_cast function should be preferred to C-style or simple function-style casting. Is this true? Why?
The main reason is that classic C casts make no distinction between what we call static_cast<>() , reinterpret_cast<>() , const_cast<>() , and dynamic_cast<>() . These four things are completely different.
A static_cast<>() is usually safe. There is a valid conversion in the language, or an appropriate constructor that makes it possible. The only time it's a bit risky is when you cast down to an inherited class; you must make sure that the object is a actually the descendant that you claim it is, by means external to the language (like a flag in the object). A dynamic_cast<>() is safe as long as the result is checked (pointer) or a possible exception is taken into account (reference).
A reinterpret_cast<>() (or a const_cast<>() ) on the other hand is always dangerous. You tell the compiler: "trust me: I know this doesn't look like a foo (this looks as if it isn't mutable), but it is".
The first problem is that it's almost impossible to tell which one will occur in a C-style cast without looking at large and disperse pieces of code and knowing all the rules.
Let's assume these:
class CMyClass : public CMyBase {...};
class CMyOtherStuff {...} ;
CMyBase *pSomething; // filled somewhere
Now, these two are compiled the same way:
CMyClass *pMyObject;
pMyObject = static_cast<CMyClass*>(pSomething); // Safe; as long as we checked
pMyObject = (CMyClass*)(pSomething); // Same as static_cast<>
// Safe; as long as we checked
// but harder to read
However, let's see this almost identical code:
CMyOtherStuff *pOther;
pOther = static_cast<CMyOtherStuff*>(pSomething); // Compiler error: Can't convert
pOther = (CMyOtherStuff*)(pSomething); // No compiler error.
// Same as reinterpret_cast<>
// and it's wrong!!!
As you can see, there is no easy way to distinguish between the two situations without knowing a lot about all the classes involved.
The second problem is that the C-style casts are too hard to locate. In complex expressions it can be very hard to see C-style casts. It is virtually impossible to write an automated tool that needs to locate C-style casts (for example a search tool) without a full blown C++ compiler front-end. On the other hand, it's easy to search for "static_cast<" or "reinterpret_cast<".
pOther = reinterpret_cast<CMyOtherStuff*>(pSomething);
// No compiler error.
// but the presence of a reinterpret_cast<> is
// like a Siren with Red Flashing Lights in your code.
// The mere typing of it should cause you to feel VERY uncomfortable.
That means that, not only are C-style casts more dangerous, but it's a lot harder to find them all to make sure that they are correct.
一个实用的提示：如果您打算整理项目，可以轻松搜索源代码中的static_cast关键字。
In short :
static_cast<>() gives you a compile time checking ability, C-Style cast doesn't. static_cast<>() can be spotted easily anywhere inside a C++ source code; in contrast, C_Style cast is harder to spot. More Explanation :
The static cast performs conversions between compatible types . It is similar to the C-style cast, but is more restrictive. For example, the C-style cast would allow an integer pointer to point to a char.
char c = 10; // 1 byte
int *p = (int*)&c; // 4 bytes
Since this results in a 4-byte pointer pointing to 1 byte of allocated memory, writing to this pointer will either cause a run-time error or will overwrite some adjacent memory.
*p = 5; // run-time error: stack corruption
In contrast to the C-style cast, the static cast will allow the compiler to check that the pointer and pointee data types are compatible, which allows the programmer to catch this incorrect pointer assignment during compilation.
int *q = static_cast<int*>(&c); // compile-time error
Read more on:
What is the difference between static_cast<> and C style casting
and
Regular cast vs. static_cast vs. dynamic_cast
上一篇: C ++类型转换