C++ things to think about while programming

Abstract

C++ is hard! C++ is even harder when you want to write good code. There are a lot of things to think about when you write code and if you don’t think about them, you are probably going to mess things up. Recently I’ve found that one good book (see references) that gives 42 (hehe!) concrete tips on how to be a better c++ programmer. This is my summary of sorts about the contents of said book.

The cool new things

Rvalue, lvalue and move semantics

“Move semantics” is a thing that we have in C++ now (since C++11 actually). It makes a ton of sense once you get it but it may be a little hard to wrap your head around it. At least in the beginning, of course. First off - why do we need move-semantics? For code efficiency! If you know what you are doing, your code can run faster, with fewer object copies and fewer objects created. Second, and perhaps more importantly, what are move semantics? The way I like to think about it - the ability to distinguish between an object that won’t be needed after the evaluation of an expression and the ability to do a different thing, if you are dealing with such object.
Take a look at the following code:

MyObject obj1, obj2;
MyObject new_obj = obj1 + obj2;

Let’s say that the part obj1 + obj2 creates a new object. This new object then gets copied through the copy assignment operator of the class MyObject. This creates another object that is stored in the new_object variable. All in all, two objects were created in this situation. The object that was originally created by obj1 + obj2 is… well, gone. We just copied it and threw it away. Shame on us! Wouldn’t it have been nice, if we could have just used that object and just “moved” it in new_obj. Yes, yes it would! And yes, it is possible. Through move semantics. That kind of object that won’t continue to live after the expression evaluation is called rvalue object. All other objects are lvalue. In the class MyObject we can define a special kind of constructor (move constructor) that “creates” object from rvalues, i. e. “moves” the data from the given object in *this. So,

• Lvalue - an object that can be used on the left-hand side of expression; an object with identifiable address;
• Rvalue - an object that won’t persist after the evaluation of a given expression; no identifiable address

Note: Every value is either an lvalue or an rvalue!

Auto

Type deduction for variables. Almost the same rules as the template argument type deduction with one small caveat. Also, in a lot of cases, it allows you to write more efficient code. Example to get you going:

std::unordered_map<std::string, std::string> map;
for(auto it : map){...} //just look how simple that is!!!

Smart pointers

For an year now, I only hear how the C++ gurus scream how raw pointers are dangerous and will probably cause memory leaks when used so… smart pointers! For the price of a tiny bit of overhead, you will make harder (but not impossible!) for yourself to do something stupid with your code. Your new two best friends are shared_ptr<> and unique_ptrt<>:

std::shared_ptr<int> int_ptr = std::maked_shared<int>(2);
std::unique_ptr<float> float_ptr = std::make_unique<float>(3.3);

When it comes to unique_ptr, it’s important to know how does one transfer the ownership of an object.

void take_ownership(std::unique_ptr<float> ptr)
{
  ... // now the pointer is mine!
}
std::unique_ptr<int[]> int_arr_ptr = std::make_unique<int[]>(10);
take_ownership(std::move(int_arr_ptr));

shared_ptr, on the other hand, can share their ownership. Again, it’s good to know how is this done because you can mess it up.

class PtrHolder {
public:
  void save_ptr(std::shared_ptr<int> ptr)
    {
      this->ptr_ = ptr;
    }
private:
  std::shared_ptr<int> ptr_;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
  Ptrholder obj;
  std::shared_ptr<int> int_ptr = std::maked_shared<int>(2);
  obj.save_ptr(int_ptr); // know there are two references to the int of int_ptr
}

Important: Do not return or take smart pointers by reference!
Creating factory methods is also relatively straightforward. Just return them by value! There is however one things to remember about unique_ptr - if the return type does not match the thing you are returning, you ought to use std::move. This holds true even, if the return of the function type is a base class and you are returning derived class (explained here).

Some random abbreviations

It is a well-known fact that C++ programmers love their abbreviations. And you know what, it actually makes a lot of sense to know those. The abbreviations in the C++ world reveal some cool, useful and right out elegant concepts that everyone should know about. Also, just to be prepared, C++ programmers are really bad at naming things.

Tips

Knowing your template type deduction is a blessing.

So every C++ programmer knows how you can define generic “templated” functions and then you can call them with different types of arguments. The calling itself will cause the compiler to instantiate the function by replacing the generic type with the deduced type. The thing you should know in this process - how the type is being deduced when it’s not given explicitly (i. e.the function is called without the <>-brackets).
So, based on T, ParamType and expr you have to know what type would be deduced in

template<T>
void f(ParamType arg);

f(expr);

There are several cases to look at.

ParamType is a reference or a pointer

template<T>
void f(T& arg);

In this case, if expr is a reference type, the reference part is ignored and the rest of the type is taken verbatim.

int x = 42;
const int cx = x;
const int& rx = cx;

f(x); // T is is int

f(cx); // T is const int

f(rx); // T is again const int

Note: This means that depending on how f is called, this may not compile

template<T>
T f(T& arg)
{
  T new_var = arg;
  new_var += 5; // if T is const int, this line here will fail
  return new_var;
}

If we now change the definition of f to

template<T>
void f(const T& arg);

the things to be “ignored” during the deduction of T are the reference part and the const part. This means that in the above examples, T will be deduced to int every time.

ParamType is a Universal Reference

Here we are getting a little bit fancier with come cool c++11 features. We define f like:

template<T>
void f(T&& arg);

In this case

• if expr is a lvalue, T and ParamType are deduced to be lvalue reference. This is the only case where T is deduced top be a reference.

f(x); // T is int&

f(cx); // T is cont int &

f(rx); // T is cont int &

• if expr is a rvalue - the rules for reference and pointer apply.

f(27); // T is int

ParamType is neither a reference, nor a pointer

This is just pass by value.

template<T>
void f(T arg);

By instantiation we ignore everything except the “pure type” (i.e. reference, const and/or volatile part are ignored)

Bonus

Array arguments decay to pointers so when passing arrays to a template function, the T will be deduced with the rules for pointers.
One can, however, define e reference to an array so with this “trick” you can force your T to be deduced to an array type.

template<T>
void f(T& arg);

int arr[13];
f(arr) // T is int[13]
       // and ParamType is int(&)[13]

“int(&)[13]” is a reference type to an array with 13 elements… myeah! With such references to arrays you can write this extraordinary function that will deduce the number of elements in an array at compile time

template<typename T, std::size_t N>
constexpr std::size_t arraySize(T (&)[N]) noexcept
{
  return N;
}

And… with that knowledge, you can now punish people who claim they “know C++”.

auto type deduction is also something to thinks about

The deduction of auto while used as a “type” of a local variable behaves almost exactly as the deduction of template types. This means you already know most of the rules.

int x = 5;
const int cx = x;
const int& rx = cx;

//case 1

auto& xx = x; //the auto is int
auto& xcx = cx; //the auto is const int
auto& xry = rx; //the auto is const int

const auto& xx = x; //the auto is int
const auto& xcx = cx; //the auto is int
const auto& xry = rx; //the auto is int


//case 2

auto&& xx = x; //the auto is int&
auto&& xcx = cx; //the auto is const int&
auto&& xry = rx; //the auto is const int&
auto&& x_rvalue = 27; // the auto is int

.
.
.

So yeah, not much new things here. Just think about what is becoming with the auto in the declaration of the variable. The final type may not be the same as the thing deduced for auto. For that, you’ll have to replace the deduced type for the auto in the declaration.
There is however one caveat with auto type deduction. Consider the snippet:

auto x1(27);
auto x2{27};

This compiles but the types of the variables are probably not what you expect. Both statements look the same and while the x1 is “well behaved” and to be expected (it is an int…surprise!), the type of x2 is std::initializer_list<int>. Yes, auto treats bracketed expressions differently and the general deduced type for them is std::initializer_list<T>. This means that the following code won’t compile

auto x{12, "random string"};

If you try using the bracketed expression with a templated function on the other side, it just won’t compile even if the objects in the brackets are all of the same types. Template type deduction just cannot handle bracketed expressions.

decltype is cool little thing

At its core decltype has a simple concept. It takes a single argument and it “returns” its type. The quotation marks are there because the thing returned thing can be used further as a part of the code. For example, you can declare a new variable with given deduced from decltype type. This is possible:

int x = 5;
decltype(x) xx = 23; // xx now has the type of x.... just plain int

This means, however, that decltype introduces a whole new set of rules for deducing a type from an expression. Thankfully, those rules are pretty simple and are what you expect…mostly as I understand it, decltype gives you exactly the type that was used when declaring the argument. It returns all the “reference-y” and “const-y” parts. Everything!
The primary use of decltype is for specifying a return type of a function that depends on the type of the incoming arguments. Imagine we want to write a generic function that accesses a given index of a given container and returns the object at the index while before that…it does “something”. In this situation, you can’t know the type of the object at the index(its constness, its referenceness…). decltype to the rescue. Check this out:

template <typename Container, typename Index>
auto doSomethingAndAcess(Container& c, Index i) -> decltype(c[i])
{
  doSomething();
  return c[i];
}

The auto at the beginning has nothing to do with auto type deduction. It just delegates the specification of the return type of the function to the end where we have access to the parameters. I believe the whole concept is called trailing return type.
This is, however, the C++11 way of doing it. C++14 offers a sprinkle of syntactic sugar to “turn on” decltype-deduction rules for auto. Namely:

template <typename Container, typename Index>
decltype(auto) doSomethingAndAcess(Container& c, Index i)
{
  doSomething();
  return c[i];
}

This way the type of the return statement will be used as a return type and it will be done in a decltype-y kind of way.

Prefer auto to explicit type declarations

General advantages of auto

• The first and obvious advantage of auto is that it spares a lot of typing. This, by extension, allows you to even not remember the types of certain things. Like… at this point who even knows what are the complete types of certain iterators! So, things like

  template<typename It>
  void dwim(It b, It e)
  {
    while (b != e)
    {
      typename std::iterator_traits<It>::value_type var = b*;
      b++;
    }
  }
  

  become

  template<typename It>
  void dwim(It b, It e)
  {
    while (b != e)
    {
      auto var = b*;
      b++;
    }
  }
  

  Awesome!

• With auto you can define types that are known only to the compiler. Lambdas! Also, since C++14 you can also use auto with lambada’s parameters.

  auto derefLess = [](const auto& p1, const auto& p2){return *p1 < *p2};
  

• auto forces you to initialize your variables which is almost always something you should do.

int x1; //uninitialized..bad!
auto x2; // wont't compile!
auto x3 = 0; //good!

• auto prevents you from using the wrong type. The official return type of std::vector<T>::size() is std::vector<int>::size_type but a lot of time it is approximated with unsigned. This may cause problems in certain situations. The problems go away if you just use auto for the type of the variable holding the return value of std::vector<>::size().
• foreach-loops become easier to type and you cannot mess up the type of the iterated elements. Always use something like:

std::unordered_map<std::string, int> m;
...
for (const auto& e : m )
{
  // e has the "most possible correct" type here
}

Explicitly typed initializer idiom

Sometimes auto won’t give you the type you desire. In those situations, it’s preferable to cast the thing you are assigning to a variable to the desired type and continue with the use of auto.

auto ep = static_cast<float>(calcEpsilon()); // explicitly reducing double to float... good!

nullptr is a pointer to nothing, 0 and NULL are not that

O and NULL sound so logical but they are not what you probably think they are. 0 is an int. If the compiler sees 0 in the context of a pointer it will be interpreted as the null-pointer. There are, however, many situations where the context is not that clear. In a lot of cases, 0 will be treated as a simple int.
The same story with NULL. Depending on the implementation it is usually some integral type and it will be treated as a number in situations where you don’t expect it to behave like this.
All problems can be solved, if you just forget about the existence of NULL and 0 and start using nullptr. nullptr is designed to be a pointer to nothing and pointer is the only way it can be interpreted. The following snippet demonstrates everything:

void f(void*);
void f(int);
void f(bool);

f(NULL); // calls f(int)

f(0); // calls f(int)

f(nullptr); // correctly calls f(void*)

Also, another added bonus to the usage of nullptr is that it is the only thing that gets properly deduced with template functions.

void f(void*);
template<typename Func,
         typename Mux,
         typename Ptr>
decltype(auto) loackAndCall(Func func, Mux& mutex, Ptr ptr)
{
  MuxGuard g(mutex);
  return func(ptr);
}

lockAndCall(f1,f1m, 0);       // error!
lockAndCall(f1,f1m, NULL);    // error!
lockAndCall(f1,f1m, nullptr); // finex

Alias declarations are better than typedef

What even I am talking about

Brief refresher. This is typedef:

typedef std::unique_ptr<std::vector<int>> VecPtr;

And this is the new cool way of doing the same thing using using (alias declaration)

using VecPtr std::unique_ptr<std::vector<int>>;

Advantages of using

• When dealing with types involving function pointers, using is much easier to swallow.

// which one of those look like the easier to type out and remember

typedef void (*FP)(int, const std::string&);

using FP = void (*) (int, const std::string&);

• Alias declarations can be templetized while typedef cannot. If you want to write template type with typedef, you’ll have to define some underling struct. using does not suffer from the same problem.

template<typename T>
using MyAllocList = std::list<T, MyAlloc<T>>

// VS.
template<typename T>
struct MyAllocList {
  typedef std::list<T, MyAlloc<T>> type;
}

It gets even worse when you want to use the type defined with typedef. Then you’ll have to use the trailing ::type after the type.

template<typename T>
class Widget
{
private:
  typename MyAllocList<T>::type list;
}

Do yourself a favor, use using!

Type transformations that come in handy

Sometimes you want to “cook” yourself some type from some already given template types. For those purposes the standard library offers some predefined type transformations:

std::remove_const<T>::type;
std::remove_const_t<T>;

std::remove_reference<T>::type;
std::remove_reference_t<T>;

std::add_lvalue_reference<T>::type;
std::add_lvalue_reference_t<T>;

...

Deleted functions are to be used instead of private ones

In some cases what you want is to prevent certain functions from being called from user code. In the good old day programmers just defined such functions private. The smarter way to do the same thing nowadays is to delete the function. This can even be done from a derived class that wants to “hide” some of the functions from its base class.

class basic_ios: public ios_base
{
public:
  basic_ios(const basic_ios&) = delete;
  basic_ios& operator=(const basic_ios&) = delete;
}
//this deletes the copy constrctor and the assgiment operator but only for the derived class

By convention deleted functions are to be declared public and not private.
Also any function could be deleted, not only member functions of a given class. With deletion you could “turn off” certain overloads of functions.

bool isLucky(int number);
bool isLucky(char) = delete;
bool isLucky(bool) = delete;
bool isLucky(double) = delete;

if(isLucky(2)){...} // fine
if(isLucky('2')){...} // error!
if(isLucky(true)){...} // error!
if(isLucky(2.5)){...} // error!

Without the deletions the function calls will compile and may not behave the way you expect them to because of the implicit conversations to int.

Use override

Virtual functions

Refresher again. Which functions are to be considered virtual.

• the base class function must be declared virtual.
• The base and derived function names must be identical.
• Parameter types of the baser and derived function must be identical.
• The constness of the base and derived functions must be identical.
• The return types and exception specifications of the base and derived functions must be compatible

Inevitably you will forget those rules and you will think that you are overriding something in a “virtual” way but you really won’t be doing that. So, the advice goes, use override to be explicit. Then you’ll have compiler tell you’ve done something wrong.

class Base
{
private:
  virtual void mf1() const;
  virtual void mf2(int x);
  virtual void mf3() &;
  void mf4() const;
}

class Derived : public Base
{
private:
  virtual void mf1() override;               // won't compile
  virtual void mf2(unsigned int x) override; // won't compile
  virtual void mf3() && override;            // won't compile
  virtual void mf4() const override;         // won't compile
}

Overloading on rvalue and lvalue

You can also overload a function based on weather the *this object is a r- or lvalue:

class Widget
{
public:
  ...
  std::vector<double>& data() & // for lvalue Widgets
    {
      return values; // return lvalue
    }

  std::vector<double> data() && // for rvalue Widgets
    {
      return std::move(values); // return rvalue
    }
};

Think when you need const_iterator and when iterator

Const iterators

Not that much to say. C++ can optimize the code much better if it deals with constness. Remember to put const before auto when you don’t need to change the objects that you iterate.

for(const auto& e : container){}

Also, when you use a function that takes iterators to perform something that does not modify the container, use std::cbegin() and std::cend() which are the const versions of std::begin() and std::end()

auto it = std::find(values.cbegin(), values.cend(), 1986);
auto it = std::find(std::cbegin(values), std::cend(values), 1986);

This brings the next point.

Want generic code, use std::begin(), std::end(),… etc

Sometimes you know that your incoming object is a container but you don’t have the guarantee that the container::begin() and container::end() methods are provided. This is the reasons to get in the habit of using std::begin() and std::end(). This makes the things a lot more generic. With them you can do this:

template<typename C, typename V>
void findAndInsert(C& container, const V& target, const V& insert)
{
  auto it = std::find(std::cbegin(container), values::cend(container), target);
  container.insert(insert, it);
}

noexcept is good and it is to be used carefully

Today the C++ compilers are quite the smart little things. Much smarter than before. Therefore they can optimize a lot of things and produce a more efficient binary. noexcept is one of the conditions that must be met for a function to be “most optimizable”. It means that the function cannot and won’t emit exception at runtime,

void fun(int x) noexcept;

Right off the start, we need to say that noexcept is a part of a function’s interface. Callers may examine if a function is noexcept and their behavior may depend on it. noexcept is almost as important as const. Think about noexcept in the definition of each function. To not declare a function noexcept is a missed opportunity to tell the compiler and everyone else that your function meets certain conditions. However, be careful, as said before noexcept is part of the interface. Whatever your choice might be, it must not be changed in the long term. Removing noexcept (or adding for that matter) to a function definition may break binary compatibility with other parts of the program that use said function.
If an exception is emitted from a noexcept function at the runtime, the program will simply terminate. So again, be careful with defining functions noexcept. If your function is noexcept but in the body usage of no-noexcept function is present, you might be in trouble.
A function may conditionally be noexcept.

template<class T, size_t N>
void swap(T (&a)[N], T (&b)[N]) noexcept(noexcept(swap_el(*a,*b)));

This function is noexcept only if the condition in the noexcept block is true. In this case, only if the function swap_el applied on two elements of the arrays a and b is noexcept.

constexpr is the new hot thing!

constexpr indicates a value(when used for variable definition) that is known during compilation. This is quite different from simply being const. Function parameters can be const but are not known during compilation. This:

constexpr int x = 5;

is on the other hand known during compilation. In this example x is a compile-time constant. It can be used in interesting ways. For example:

std::array<int, x> arr; // defines array with 5 int elements

At this point, I’ll have to mention that, of course, all constexpr objects are const by extension. Not all const objects are constexpr however.
Things become a lot more interesting once constexpr functions are involved. Those create what is called a constexpr context. This means that those functions could be parsed and executed during compilation given that the provided arguments are known during compilation(i. e. they are defined as constexpr). When the conditions for compile-time executions are not met, the function can also act like a normal function. In C++11 those constexpr functions were limited to a single statement - the return statement. In C++14 however, this limitation is drooped. Simple example:

constexpr int pow(int base, int exp) noexcept
{
  auto res = 1;
  for(int i = 0; i < exp; i++) res *= base;
  return res;
}
constexpr size = 3;
std::array<double, pow(3,2)> arr; // array of size 9

When I first saw this, it blew my mind! constexpr functions may be executed in constexpr contents only if take literal type. Those include all base types except void but user defined types may also be literal if the define constexpr constructor and may be used in constexpr context if some of their methods are constexpr. This is absolutely valid:

class Point
{
public:
  constexpr Point(int xval = 0, int yval = 0) noexcept
    :x(xval), y(yval)
    {}

  constexpr int getX() const noexcept{return this->x;}
  constexpr int getY() const noexcept{return this->y;}
private:
  int x, y;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{

  constexpr Point point(5,3);
}

point can be further used in constexpr functions and those could be executed during compilation. To note is that in C++11 setters for the Point-Class can’t be constexpr as they modify the object and therefore they are not even const. Further more, the return types of those are void which is not literal type. C++14 lifts both of these restrictions. So..

class Point
{
public:
  constexpr Point(int xval = 0, int yval = 0) noexcept
    :x(xval), y(yval)
    {}

  constexpr int getX() const noexcept{return this->x;}
  constexpr int getY() const noexcept{return this->y;}

  constexpr void setX(int val) noexcept{this->x = val;}
  constexpr void setY(int val) noexcept{this->y = val;}
private:
  int x, y;
}

This gives us the ability to write something like this:

constexpr Point reflection(const Point& p) noexcept
{
  Point result;
  result.setX(-p.getX());
  result.setY(-p.getY());
  return result; // returning copy of the object
}

If invoked with a constexpr variable of type Point the function will be evaluated at compile time.
It’s important to keep in mind that constexpr is a part of a function’s interface. Again, as noexcept, users may rely on this interface. Also, if constexpr is used with constexpr variables in constexpr context and it has some side effects(as I/O or simply logging something to the standard output) it will cause a compile-time error. So yeah, be careful. constexpr is pretty close to the new const but not quite!
One final thing. Please do yourself a favor and check out this! A talk with Jason Turnen and Ben Deane that shows exactly what you can do with constexpr.

The mutable keyword exists and you should know about it!

So let’s say you have the following class that is used not only by you but by someone that is not you and over whom you have to direct control.

class ResourceProvider
{
public:
  ResourceProvider(...){}

  void changeState(int x, int y)
    {
      this->x = x;
      this->y = y;
    }

  double getResource() const
    {
      return this->expensivecomputation();
    }
private:
  double expensiveComputation(int x, int y) const {...}
  double x,y;
}

Everything is perfect. The getResource function is const and it has no side effect. This is as good as it gets with C++ functions. It’s optimizable AF.
One they, however, one of the clients of the class writes you an email with the complaint that the getResources function is too slow and changeState gets called relatively seldom so they end up caching the result of getResource. “Wouldn’t it be convenient if the class did that on its own automatically,” they say. And yes! It certainly would be nice. So you change your class to:

class ResourceProvider
{
public:
  ResourceProvider(...){}

  void changeState(int x, int y)
    {
      this->x = x;
      this->y = y;
      this->state_changed = true;
    }

  double getResource() const
    {
      if (state_changed)
      {
        cached_value = this->expensivecomputation();
        state_changed = false;
      }

      return cached_value;
    }
private:
  double expensiveComputation(int x, int y) const {...}
  double x,y;
  bool state_changed = true;
  double cached_value;
}

And….it doesn’t compile. Sad! getResource has side effects now. It isn’t const! It can’t const! BAD! You have a few options now:

• remove the const from the function declaration and the hell breaks loose
• use something like const_cast and feel… like a horrible human being after the fact (plus it’s really ugly to do that). I mean… you are lying with your function interface if you do that
• use mutable!!

Yes mutable is completely different beast. If you define variable as mutable it can be changed from const functions. Myeah! You rewrite your class.

class ResourceProvider
{
public:
  ResourceProvider(...){}

  void changeState(int x, int y)
    {
      this->x = x;
      this->y = y;
      this->state_changed = true;
    }

  double getResource() const
    {
      if (state_changed)
      {
        cached_value = this->expensivecomputation();
        state_changed = false;
      }

      return cached_value;
    }
private:
  double expensiveComputation(int x, int y) const {...}
  double x,y;
  mutable bool state_changed = true;
  mutable double cached_value;
}

You ship it. Everyone is happy. The code is clean. You can live in peace with the new knowledge now! Also, watch this talk by Kate Gregory. She goes over the problem presented here in much more engaging fashion.

std::unique_ptr is for exclusive ownership!

Generally, when you want to use a pointer in the new modern C++ world, your first thought should be “Can I use unique_ptr here?”. And yes, this is the preferred way of using “pointers” these days. unique_ptr can be viewed as small as a raw pointer and for most operations, they behave exactly the same way as raw pointers.
There are few things to keep in mind while using unique_ptr.

• unique_ptr embodies exclusive ownership. Every unique_ptr that is not empty “owns” the resource it’s holding and you have a guarantee (generally) that this is the only object holding a pointer to the underlying object. The unique_ptr cannot be copied as this would create another holder of the resource so unique_ptr-s are only movable
• You can know exactly when an unique_ptr object would be destroyed and with that the resource released. It is said that one of the greatest features of C++ is the closing brackets }. In order words, the fact that you know the exact moment at which an object will be destroyed and the destructor of the class will be executed for this object. The ramifications for unique_ptr is that the object will be destroyed when the enclosing scope comes to an end. Of course, you could move the unique_ptr before that and transfer its ownership to some other part of the program. The moving was talked about in the beginning.

A typical use of unique_ptr are the factory methods. The factory function could even return different type (from some hierarchy, of course) of an object depending on the inputs input parameters.

class Base {}
class D1 : public Base {}
class D2 : public Base {}

std::unique_ptr<Base> createObj(int param1, double param2)
{
  if (...)
    return std::make_unique<D1>();
  else
    return std::make_unique<D2>();
}

Another thing to know about unique_ptr is its ability to define custom deleter for the object. Normally unique_ptr uses simple delete to destroy the resource it’s holding to but this behavior could be overridden.

auto del_base = [](Base *object){
                 makeLog(object);
                 ...
                 delete object;
               };
std::unique_ptr<Base, decltype(del_base)> ptr(new Base(), del_base);

std::shared_ptr is for shared ownership!

Not having garbage collection in C++ is a curse and a blessing at the same time. The knowledge of when exactly your objects are being destroyed and memory released gives you quite the freedom to write high performing code. On the other hand, this freedom comes with a lot of pitfalls and potential problems that you can introduce into your program. shared_ptr aims to provide you with “garbage collection”-like solution while staying true to the C++ “optimize everything” principles.
shared_ptr implements a reference counting system. Several different shared_ptr objects can hold a pointer to the same underlying resource. The resource will be destroyed only then when all shared_ptr have exited their respective scopes (i.e. are destroyed). There is a little bit of overhead once you bring the whole reference-spiel. The important things to keep in mind:

• shared_ptr are twice the size of a raw pointer
• memory for the reference count must be dynamically allocated
• Increments and decrements of the reference count must be atomic
• Constructing a shared_ptr usually increments the reference count. Why usually? Because move-construction is also construction but it doesn’t actually produce “new object”. The pointer of the old object (the one we are moving from) is just set to null. and the new object takes its place in the world so no new reference is actually created.
• Each resource that is managed through shared_ptr has what is called a control block. There the shared_ptr meta-information about he pointer it holds(reference count, custom delete… ). The control block is allocated on the heap
  • std::make_shared always creates new control block
  • A control block is also created when the shared_ptr object is constructed from a unique-ownership pointer (unique_ptr).
  • A control block is created even when you pass a raw pointer to the constructor of the shared_ptr. If you want a new shared_ptr that manages the same resource, you should copy-construct it from another shared_ptr

The last point is kinda important. You have to think about the control blocks that are created or else you could end up with several control blocks for the same resource which is a perfect recipe for undefined behavior. Look the following code

std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Widget>> processed;
...
class Widget
{
public:
  void process()
    {
      processed.emplace_back(this);// bad!!!
    }
}

The part that is wrong is the passing of a raw pointer to a container of shared_ptr-s. This will create a new control block which could be not bad but if there are other sahred_ptr-s in some other part of the program that already have control block for the *this object… undefined behavior!! This is, however, a problem that was thought about and a solution exists. Introducing std::enable_shared_from_this<T>. Weird name but it does the trick. If a class inherits from this thing, then it is safe to create shared_ptr from the this pointer. The safe code looks like:

class Widget : public std::enable_shared_fro_this<Widget>
{
public:
  void process()
    {
      processed.emplace_back(shared_from_this());// good!!!
    }
}

Pimpl and the proper way to use it.

Ever heard of forward declaration. If not go check it out. The Pimpl idiom kinda solves the same problem. If you don’t want to clutter your header files with the header files of the classes that you use, you can “deffer” this “implementation detail” to the .cpp file. Check this out:

//Wifget.hpp
class Widget
{
  Widget();
  ~Widget();

private:
  struct Impl;
  Impl impl*;
}
//Wifget.cpp

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

#include "Gadget.hpp"
#include "Widget.hpp"

struct Widget::Impl
{
  std::sting name;
  Gadget g1, g2, g3;
  std::vecotr<double> data;
}

Widget::Widget()
  :impl(new Impl);

Widget::~Widget()
{
  delete impl;
}

Notice how in Widget.hpp we didn’t have to include a single header. There is no mention of the headers for the fields in the implementation of the class. The implementation appears only in the .cpp file. This can potentially speed up compilation times as it reduces the compile-dependencies between the classes.
Now to utilize C++14 we can rewrite the class to use uniqe_ptr for the implementation and write our necessary constructors.

//Wifget.hpp
class Widget
{
  Widget();
  Widget(const Widget& rhs);
  Widget& operator=(const Widget& rhs);
  Widget(const Widget&& rhs);
  Widget& operator=(Widget&& rhs);
  ~Widget();

private:
  struct Impl;
  std::uniqe_ptr<Impl> impl;
}
//Wifget.cpp

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

#include "Gadget.hpp"
#include "Widget.hpp"

  struct Widget::Impl{..}

    Widget::Widget()
      :impl(std::make_unique<Widget::Impl>()){};

Widget::Widget(const Widget&& rhs) = default;
Widget::operator=(Widget&& rhs) = default;
Widget::~Widget() = default;

Widget::Widget(const Widget& rhs) :
  impl(std::make_unique<Widget::Impl>(*rhs.impl)){}

Widget& Widget::operator=(const Widget& rhs)
{
  *impl = *rhs.impl;
  return *this;
}

Note: Use your header only for a declaration when possible. Also, = defualt is implementation so put in the .cpp file, not in the header. If in this case, you did that in the header file, the compiler would not how to generate the move constructor and the move assignment operator as an implementation of the calls is not in the header. In the header the struct Impl is incomplete and *impl is a pointer to incomplete type so the compiler could not deal with that.
The compiler happily generates the move constructors for us as the default implementation is exactly the thing we want. Just perform move on the implementation. The default copy constructors, however, would only perform a shallow copy of the object so we have to write them ourselves.
The detractor is also the default one because we have no code to put in it. The unique_ptr automatically deletes its contents once it is destroyed.

std::forward and std::move are quite interesting.

Ok, hopefully by now you at least have heard of move semantics. Inevitably you’ve also probably seen std::move() and std::forward<T>() used in some weird way and wondered “What the hell is happening here?”. The first thing to understand about hose functions - they are functions that don’t do much in run-time. They don’t generate code. They don’t “move”. At their core, those functions are casts. They cast rvalue object to lvalue ones. Refer to one of the intro sections for more information about what are those. The difference between std::move() and std::forward<T>() is that they perform the cast under different conditions. std::move() performs it always with no conditions. std::forward<T>() casts to revalue only if a certain condition is met - if the argument is bind to rvalue.
Yes, it is well known and by this point accepted fact that std::move() has confusing AF name but… just roll with it and it will grow on you. std::move() doesn’t actually move anything. std::move() merely makes an object eligible for moving. This is no guarantee however that an object will be moved from. Consider this:

class Anotation
{
private:
  std::string text;
public:
  Anotation(const std::string name): text(std::move(name)){}
  //this doesn't do what it seems to do
}
Anotation("ano");

Think about what is happening here. We are passing a string to the constructor which takes it by value and “moves” its content inside the text field. But there is also const. This means that the result of the std::move(name) is rvalue const std::string. The constness is still there. This means that the move constructor of std::string cannot be used as it will change the object that it takes which is const. For that reason, the ordinary constructor is called and the value is just copied and not moved. The lesson to be learned here - rvalue objects will not be moved sorely on the fact that they are rvalue/s. They also must be /const.
As already said std::forward<T>() only casts to rvalue if the argument is bound to rvalue object. std::forward<T>() is typically used in cases where perfect forwarding is required. That is, a function takes some arguments and those are automatically lvalue in the function body even if the fiction is invoked with rvalue/s. In the body, however, you may want to “forward” the argument to other functions that may need to differentiate between /r- and lvalues. In this case, one would use std::forward<T>(). Example:

template<typename T>
void logAndProcess(T&& param)
{
  auto now = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
  makeEntry("Calling process", now);
  /* Here we dont't know whether the function was invoed
   with rvalue or lvalue. Therefore we forward the
   argument perfectly */
  process(std::forward<T>(param));
}

Universal references and rvalue references

First things first - “universal reference” is a lie. There is no such thing in the official C++ specification. There there is “forwarding reference”. “Forwarding reference” is absolutely the same thing as what Scott Meyers means with “universal reference” in his book. Here I will also use universal reference. OK? OK. Good that now this is out of the way.
We know that we can define functions that take rvalue references like:

void f(Widget&& param);

Here param is rvalue reference and it binds only to rvalue objects. Consider on the other hand this function:

template<typename T>
void g(T&& param);

Here param can bind to rvalues and to lvalues. This is what makes it universal reference.
For a reference to be universal one certain condition must be met

1. Type deduction must occur
2. The reference must have exactly the form “T&&”. No const, no nothing. Just “T&&”.

If the const qualifier is used for the function parameter, it(the parameter) will “collapse” rvalue const reference which pretty useless on itself as we say in the previous tip.
As stated if universal reference is bound to “rvalue”, it is an “rvalue”-reference and “lvalue”-reference if it’s bound to an “lvalue”. This means that universal references are exactly the things to be used with std::forward<T>().

Pass by value is not what your first C++ book would have you believe

Maybe this is exclusive to me but when I was learning C++ I was left with the impression that passing things by value is kinda dumb if you can pass it by reference. I mean, who needs the extra copy, right?! Not quite. Consider the case of a simple setter

class Widget
{
  void setName(const std::string& name)
    {
      this->name = name;
    }
}

What you actually are doing is:

• take a string by reference
• copy it in the field name

The copy is still there! It’s just that you performed the copying and not the compiler. Now, this is kinda sub-optimal. The compiler is smarter than you. After the compiler has copied the value from the caller in the function’s parameter we can - enter modern C++ - move it in the corresponding field:

class Widget
{
  void setName(std::string name)
    {
      this->name = std::move(name);
    }
}

This looks like good modern c++. Copying… is not that bad as might you think. Compilers are pretty good these days. Do not be mislead. A copy of a single string has virtually no overhead.
Still, there still exists a time and place for passing by const references. If you actually don’t need a copy of the passed argument, then there is no reason for pass-by-value

class Widget
{
  void process(const Gadget& gadget)
    {
      // now we can only use const functions of Gadget
      if(gadget.getNumberOfTicks){....}
    }
}

Passing pure references also makes sense in some situations:

std::vector<std::string> names;
void populate(std::string& name)
{
  name.pusb_back("Stanislv");
  name.pusb_back("Marina");
}
populete(names);

To summarize (taken from an answer from this StackOverflow question)

Return value optimization(RVO) - don’t return std:::move of local variable

With your awesome new knowledge about move-semantics you can now write highly optimized, highly performant code that will go \*whoosh\* past those pesky languages running on virtual machines. You will, however, be tempted to make some “optimizations” at places where you really shouldn’t mess with the compiler. Please always repeat to yourself “The compiler is smarter than me!”.
Consider the following snippet:

Widget makeWIdget()
{
  Widget w;
  ...;
  return w;
}

We are creating a local variable in a function and we are returning it by value. We think about what is happening. The object is created - construction, the object is returned by value - we copy our new object and return the copy because the local object will be destroyed once the scope of the function ends. Copy! We know what rvlaues are. We don’t need any copy. We can move! We rewrite the code like:

Widget makeWIdget()
{
  Widget w;
  ...;
  return std::move(w);
}

Awesome, we saved ourselves one copy! Wrong!!!
Introducing Return Value Optimization. In some situations(most of them) the compiler will notice that you are returning a local variable by value. If certain conditions are met, the compiler will construct this local object in the exact place in memory where the return value of the function will reside after the function is invoked. In such cases, the return statement won’t produce copy nor will move construction would be necessary. This is good! The conditions that should be met for RVO to occur:

1. The type of the local object must be the same as the return value.
2. The local object is being returned.
3. The type is move-constructible.

What happens when we std::move the local object - we crate reference to it and RVO can’t be performed. So, don’t return std::move!
Ok, but still. RVO is just an optimization. Maybe the compiler won’t be able to figure out which local object we want to return and will punish us with a copy while returning. No! Again - “The compiler is smarter than me!”. Return values are always treated as rvalues. So when your function is:

Widget makeWIdget()
{
  Widget w;
  ...;
  return w;
}

and the compiler can’t do RVO, what it effectively sees is :

Widget makeWIdget()
{
  Widget w;
  ...;
  return std::move(w);
}

So no. You would never need to return with std::move of local object.

std::async is something that exists and it’s generally to be preferred over std::thread.

A lot of times you will want to run something asynchronously in your program. C++ and the standard library make this relatively easy and give you two approaches.

• std::thread - for thread-based strategy
• std::async - for task-based strategy

In general, you should prefer std::async. It works on a higher level of abstraction than std::thread and it hides some of the details that you can mess up and delegates them to the implementation. The basic asynchronous call goes like:

int doAsyncWork();

auto fut = std::async(doAsyncWork); // fut is a future

A further reason why std::async is better is because with it we can get the result from the function that we are calling asynchronously through the future’s get method. There isn’t really a straight forward way of extracting a result from a separate thread constructed with std::thread.
If you opt to use thread-based programming you’ll have to deal with thread exhaustion, over-subscription, load balancing, and adaptation to new platforms. And you know…all of these are super fun to deal with. You may have to do it sometimes thou. As stated, threads are lower level concurrency API. Threads may allow you to write more efficient code suited to your specific needs. Cases where threads may be necessary

• You want to mess directly with the concurrency API provided by the OS. Given this would be pretty hard, it could potentially lead to tremendous speed when done right. Essentially you would have to define the way how your program communicates with the OS as “real” threads are managed by it.
• You know exactly what your needs are and you want to deal with threads and build the whole multi-threading and asynchronous code/system yourself. This is pretty doable and could be a nice learning experience. You probably will implement something that already exists but hey, that’s how you learn new things and I would actually encourage this.
• If you are implementing some concurrency technology that is not offered by C++, yeah, you bet you’ll need to use threads and deal with them.

Conclusion

I just want to say one thing. Never, never say that you “know C++” and be deeply skeptical of people who use the said expression. C++ is complex and you can do everything in a lot of different ways and probably things are going to work no matter what. However, some solutions in C++ are very clearly better than others and a lot of times it is not clear what is the “optimal” way of achieving your goal. Do not be mislead by your knowledge! C++ offers you an ever-expanding world of good\bad solutions and knowing everything that there is to know is most likely infeasible. And you know what, that’s actually OK. Because let’s face it, software engineering is all about learning something new every day in the process of horribly breaking your code.

References

I’m very thankful to these sources:

• Effective modern C++ - the book am talking about in this post
• Smart pointers guidelines - a very useful guide on how to be smart with your smart pointers
• Understanding the meaning of lvalue or rvalues - a good blog post that will walk you through the usages and the meaning of move semantics and how are they implemented through rvalue and lvalue.

Check them out if you want to be a better C++ programmer.