Skip to content
Solving the Expression Problem in C++11
Branch: master
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Type Name Latest commit message Commit time
Failed to load latest commit information.

Poly. Solving the Expression Problem in C++11

This library will likely change how you thought about polymorphism in C++.

Remark. Still a proof-of-concept, probably too early or fragile for production use yet.

Quickly, show me the code!

Here is an example header file.

// "drawable.hpp"

#include <poly/interface.hpp>
#include <ostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>

namespace example {


using drawable = poly::interface<
    void(draw_, poly::self const &, std::ostream &, std::size_t)>;

template <typename T>
void call(draw_, T const &x, std::ostream& out, std::size_t position) {
    out << std::string(position, ' ') << x << std::endl;

template <typename T>
void call(draw_, std::vector<T> const& xs, std::ostream& o, std::size_t p) {
    o << std::string(p, ' ') << "<document>" << std::endl;
    for (auto& x : xs) example::draw(x, o, p + 2);
    o << std::string(p, ' ') << "</document>" << std::endl;

} // example


(For comparison and reference, see the presentation video by Sean Parent from C++Now! 2012, with source code here.)

This is how the header might be used. The types int, std::vector<int>, std::string, my::klass, and even std::vector<example::drawable> almost magically convert to example::drawable:

// "main.cpp"
#include "drawable.hpp"
#include <iostream>

namespace my { struct klass {}; }

namespace example {
    // Implement example::drawable for my::klass.
    void call(draw_, my::klass, std::ostream & o, std::size_t p) {
        o << std::string(p, ' ') << "my klass" << std::endl;

using document = std::vector<example::drawable>;

int main() {
    document doc;
    doc.push_back(std::vector<int>{1, 2, 3});
    doc.push_back(std::string("a string!"));
    std::cout << "--- HERE WE GO: ---" << std::endl;
    example::draw(doc, std::cout, 0);
    std::cout << "--- DONE. ---" << std::endl;


--- HERE WE GO: ---
  a string!
    a string!
  my klass
--- DONE. ---


Given the above header file code, we have:

  • created a callable named example::draw,
  • defined the interface example::drawable, and
  • defined two generic implementations for example::draw — one for ostreamable types, another for std::vector<T> of any T implementing the call to example::draw(x, o, p).

This setup makes example::run generic in the sense that you can pass in anything for which the example::drawable interface is implemented, be it your class, a class written (and compiled) by somebody else, or even a built-in type like int!

To implement an interface for a given class my::klass, see the function signatures in the definition of the interface. In the case of example::drawable, there's only one:

void(example::draw_, poly::self const &, std::ostream &, std::size_t)

In your mind, replace poly::self with your class name. The line above reads that the call

example::draw(x, o, p);

is expected to be an expression convertible to void, given my::klass const & x, std::ostream & o, and std::size_t p. You can implement exactly this signature by overloading the free function named call for example::draw_ as the first argument, followed by the said set of three arguments:

namespace example {
    void call(draw_, my::klass const &, std::ostream &, std::size_t);

The call function needs to be found through argument-dependent name lookup (ADL), so in this case it could have been defined in the namespace my as well (although the former is recommended for consistency).

Is it any good?


  • poly::interface is move-aware — you can cheaply move values of different (move-aware) types into the interface. Likewise, you can cheaply return a moved poly::interface from a function (even if the wrapped type wasn't move-aware).
  • Callables are generic functions objects but as such also first class objects — you can freely pass and return them to and from higher-order functions, supporting polymorphic functional programming.
  • Types can be perfectly oblivious about the interfaces they need to implement. (This is a Big Deal. See the talk about the expression problem below.)
  • There are no raw pointers you need to mess around with. It is perfectly clear, who owns the object and when it is destroyed.
  • There is no shared state. Objects of type poly::interface<...> act as values, which is known to be a nice property in multithreaded applications.
  • There's a backdoor too: If you can handle the type T wrapped in a poly::interface<...> x, you can cast back to it using poly::cast<T>(x). You can even move the value out: poly::cast<T>(std::move(x)). (Introspect the wrapped value by asking x.type(). It returns std::type_info const & like typeid(...).)

How to compile the examples?

The library is header-only. Just add the include folder to your library include path, and compile in the C++11 mode (with a decent C++11-aware standard library). Here are two build commands that have worked for me. Clang with libc++ (trunk builds from both):

mkdir -p bin/example
export CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH=/path/to/libcxx/include
export    LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/path/to/libcxx/lib
/path/to/llvm-build/Release/bin/clang++ \
    -std=c++11 \
    -stdlib=libc++ \
    -ftemplate-depth-128 \
    -Iinclude \
    example/main.cpp -o bin/example/main

GCC 4.7.1:

mkdir -p bin/example
g++-4.7 \
    -std=c++11 \
    -ftemplate-depth-128 \
    -Iinclude \
    example/main.cpp -o bin/example/main

What are callables?

They are externally overloadable polymorpic function objects. (Phew!) That's for short. Before diving into the long explanation, let's define a callable — this time, without using the convenience macro POLY_CALLABLE(name).

#include <poly/callable.hpp>

namespace ns {
    struct add_ : poly::callable<add_> {};
    constexpr add_ add = {};

See? No function definition yet. That's correct, you couldn't use this piece of code much, not before adding an implementation like:

namespace ns {
    int call(add_, int a, int b) { return a + b; }
    double call(add_, double a, double b) { return a + b; }

Now it's possible to call the callable:

int main() {
    if (ns::add(-1.0, 2.0) != 0)
        return ns::add(-10, 10);
    return -1;
} // returns 0, no error

Tell me more about callables

Calling a callable actually just forwards the callable and the arguments to the free function call, found by argument-dependent name lookup (ADL):

ns::add(-1.0, 2.0); // equivalent to: call(ns::add, -1.0, 2.0);

In the previous example, you saw how to overload callables for simple types. You can use templates as well:

// ...

namespace ns {
    template <typename A, typename B>
    auto call(add_, A const & a, B const & b)
    -> decltype(a + b) { return a + b; }

#include <string>
#include <iostream>

int main() {
    std::string a = "abc";
    std::string b = "def";
    std::cout << ns::add(a, b) << std::endl; //=> abcdef

But you can overload even more:

// ...

namespace ns {
    template <typename A, typename B, typename... More>
    auto call(add_, A const & a, B const & b, More const &... more)
    -> decltype(ns::add(a + b, more...)) { return ns::add(a + b, more...); }

int main() { return ns::add(short(1), 2, 3, 4, -10); } // still no error

Basically, callables are stateless function objects which decide their implementation not before they are called with some set of arguments. And as function objects they can be passed around in functional constructs like std::for_each or std::bind.

// ...

#include <algorithm>
#include <functional>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>

int main() {
    using std::placeholders::_1;
    std::vector<char> secret = {8, 5, 12, 12, 15};
    std::string message;
    std::transform(begin(secret), end(secret), begin(secret),
                   back_inserter(message), std::bind(ns::add, 'a' - 1, _1));
    std::cout << message << std::endl; //=> hello

Callables use ADL to delay the selection of implementation, and as such, it is enough that the declaration (of call(...)) is visible before the function calling the callable is instantiated (or the before the calling piece of code, if it's not a template).

Oh, and by the way, callables should be pretty good at supporting inline, constexpr, and noexcept, should you use them in your definition of call(...). In the following example, the use of constexpr is demonstrated.


template <typename A, typename B>
constexpr auto call(minus_, A const & a, B const & b)

template <typename A, typename B, typename... More>
constexpr auto call(minus_, A const & a, B const & b, More const &... more)
POLY_RETURNS(minus(a - b, more...));

using two = std::integral_constant<int, minus(5, 3)>; // minus as constexpr!
print(two::value); //=> 2

Here, some more boilerplate was saved by using the POLY_RETURNS(...) macro, which conveniently avoids the need for noexcept and result type computation with auto.

But I like to define my member functions within my class

Shame on you, for missing the point of separating code and data! However, it's still possible to define call(...) as part of a class definition:

namespace my {
    class xxx {
        int i;
        explicit xxx(int i) : i(i) {}
        friend void call(example::draw_, xxx const & x,
                         std::ostream & o, std::size_t p)
            o << std::string(p, ' ') << "xxx(" << x.i << ')' << std::endl;

int main() {
    my::xxx x(123);
    example::draw(x, std::cout, 0);  //=> xxx(123)

How does poly::interface actually work?

Behind the curtains, it creates a wrapper template around the type you construct it from, and holds a unique pointer to that wrapper. At the point of instantiating the wrapper, poly::interface<...> checks that all of the function signatures are implemented for the type provided.

Then, poly::interface<...> defines the call functions (as friend to itself) by forwarding the calls to the wrapper (using virtual functions internally). As a result, any callable listed in the definition of the interface is automatically overloaded for that poly::interface<...> itself.

In other words, given for example:

using interface1 = poly::interface<
    result1(callable1_, poly::self &),
    result2(callable2_, poly::self &&, int),
    result3(callable3_, std::ostream &, poly::self const &)>;

the following functions get automatically defined:

result1 call(callable1_, interface1 & x);
result2 call(callable2_, interface1 && x, int i);
result3 call(callable3_, std::ostream & o, interface1 const & x);

Any type T that needs to be convertible to interface1 will then need to have callable1, callable2, and callable3 likewise implemented.

I get nasty compiler errors

Do yourself a favor and use a (very) recent version of Clang. :-P

Right, "thanks", but I'm using GCC

Ok, at least GCC 4.7.1 seems to work fine. But its error messages still suck. (Ok ok, they aren't too good in the worst cases in Clang either. But still much better)

One more thing you can do (be it whatever compiler) is simplify the type name of your interface by passing it as the first CRTP template argument to poly::interface. Instead of:

using drawable = poly::interface<
    void(draw_, poly::self const &, std::ostream &, std::size_t)>;

you can write:

struct drawable : poly::interface<drawable,
    void(draw_, poly::self const &, std::ostream &, std::size_t)>

At least, the list of function signatures won't show up that often in the error messages.

How to make the interface return its own type?

You might need your interface to have "member" functions returning its own type. For example, a negate function. This is possible by using the curiously recurring template pattern (CRTP) which poly::interface supports.

#include <poly/interface.hpp>
#include <iostream>


template <typename T>
auto call(negate_, T && x) POLY_RETURNS(-std::forward<T>(x));

template <typename T>
void call(print_, T const & x) { std::cout << x << std::endl; }

struct negatable : poly::interface<negatable,
    negatable(negate_, poly::self const &),
    void(print_, poly::self const &)>

int main() {
    negatable i = 123;
    negatable j = negate(i);
    print(i); //=> 123
    print(j); //=> -123

How to get back the value I originally put in?

You can introspect the type of the object by asking x.type().

example::drawable x = 123;
assert(x.type() == typeid(int));

Now you can cast the int back using poly::cast<T>(x):

int i = poly::cast<int>(x);

If the cast fails, an exception of type poly::bad_cast (inherits std::bad_cast) is thrown. Like in Boost.Any, you can avoid the exception by passing in a pointer to the interface:

double * p = poly::cast<double>(&x);
if (p) {
    // this branch is missed, because x was an int!
} else {
    // wasn't a double!

You can even move the value out by casting, when you pass in an rvalue.

auto is = std::vector<int>{1, 2, 3};
int ptr = &is[0];
example::drawable xs = std::move(is);
auto js = poly::cast<std::vector<int>>(std::move(xs)); // move data from xs
assert(poly::cast<std::vector<int>>(xs).empty()); // xs is now "moved-from"
assert(&js[0] == ptr); // still the same vector

Isn't this just a big hack?

Well, yes. Maybe not that big.

Argument-dependent name lookup is known to be brittle, and you'll likely get problems with ODR (one definition rule) if you aren't careful and end up implementing an interface for some type differently in two compilation units. (TODO: Add an example and counter-example demonstrating this!) But surely you know about these issues as a proficient C++ programmer anyway, don't you?

A good way to deal with interface implementations — should the specialization be used in several source files — might be to dedicate an own header/source file pair for the implementation:

// "klass_as_drawable.hpp"

#include "klass.hpp"    // namespace my { struct klass {}; }
#include "drawable.hpp" // namespace example { using drawable = ... ; }

namespace example {
    void call(draw_, my::klass const&, std::ostream&, std::size_t);


To header file above would then be included by anybody using my::klass as example::drawable. The source file with the implementation could be written as:

// "klass_as_drawable.cpp"
#include "klass_as_drawable.cpp"

void example::call(example::draw_,
                   my::klass const&, std::ostream& o, std::size_t p)
    o << std::string(p, ' ') << "my klass" << std::endl;

Isn't this just like Haskell's type classes or Clojure's protocols?

That's what I'm trying to do, so yes.

Well, with the exception that there is no garbage collector involved in this case. And that the implementations are resolved at compile time as much as possible, and that the runtime cost is that of a virtual function lookup per call.

Having poly::interface<...> means, you can add or remove interfaces for arbitrary value types without modifying or recompiling their source code. Likewise, you can change an already used interface, and you only need to recompile those files where the interface is used. If I'm not missing a point, this idea turns out to solve the expression problem in C++11.

What are the requirements?

  1. A recent C++11 compiler. Clang 3.1 (or trunk) and GCC 4.7 should work. Visual C++ probably won't. I don't know about the other compilers yet. (I've only tested it on OS X so far.) Compile with -std=c++11 enabled.
  2. The type implementing the interface needs to be copyable and movable. (This might change to only require types being movable, when I'm a bit more informed about the use cases.)
  3. The interface must be implemented equally for a given type in all compilation units converting the type to the interface. This requirement exists to not violate the one definition rule (ODR).
  4. Every function signature passed as template arguments to poly::interface needs to start with a callable type as first argument. In addition, one of the arguments shall be either of
  • poly::self &,
  • poly::self const &,
  • poly::self &&, or
  • poly::self, corresponding to *this (or a copy of *this).

The easiest to understand position for the self argument is as the first actual argument, immediately after the callable.

Shortcomings and Further Development

  1. poly::interface<...> requires the types to be not only movable but also copyable. — It probably makes sense to offer an alternative where only movable is required, maybe something like poly::interface<poly::noncopyable, ...>. I'll need to first see how poly::interface can or cannot be used as it currently is, before implementing that feature. Please, tell me if you need a version of poly::interface for non-copyable types.
  2. The support for poly::cast<T>(x) and std::type_info is always enabled in poly::interface, even if it might not be needed. — Again, this feature might be made optional, but I'd like to learn about its possible uses first.
  3. There is no (simple) way to create a poly::interface with reference semantics. — This is intentional. I'm trying to restrict to value semantics with this. (You can hack around this by using std::ref(x) and specializing std::reference_wrapper<T>. But on your own risk.) Again, if there is point in allowing reference semantics, let's reconsider.
  4. poly::interface<...> relies on virtual functions internally. I have no idea yet, whether this incurs a performance penalty compared to alternative approaches. The internals might change when there is some data to justify an optimization.
  5. Unit tests are missing. — Oh well, they're coming. In the meantime, deal with my products of Example Driven Development in the example directory.
  6. Error messages may be tough to decipher. — I'll try my best to make them simpler. With tools static_assert in place, there's at least some hope. Feel free to help if you have any insight on improving the diagnostics.
  7. This might make sense to be as part of the Boost C++ Libraries. — Maybe, yes. I'm looking forward to it. But there is a similar proposal out already, and Steven Watanabe has done pretty good work (and much more so than me) already. Let's see if we can combine our efforts somehow.


  • Sean Parent, for an enlightening talk about value semantics and concepts-based polymorphism in the C++Now! 2012 conference, and for the inspiration for this proof-of-concept library. See his slides and example code in GitHub.
  • Johanness "litb" Schaub, for teaching me how ADL works, and Joel Falcou et al., for showing how to further trick the ADL system.
  • Dave Abrahams, for the combined RETURNS(...) / noexcept(noexcept(...)) trick as well as some other metaprogramming tricks used.
  • Steven Watanabe, for the idea of emulating boost::any, and very likely several other ideas used in this library, like operator overloading or the use of self as a placeholder type, all inherited from his proposed Boost.TypeErasure library (see docs). Here's me hoping we can somehow unite our efforts, and bring type erasure and non-intrusive interfaces to the mainstream of C++ programming.


Copyright 2012 Pyry Jahkola.

Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at


Pyry Jahkola

Twitter: @pyrtsa

I write software at Futurice.
Have you heard about us already?

You can’t perform that action at this time.