Alt text:
A screenshot from the linked article titled “Reflection in C++26”, showing reflection as one of the bullet points listed in the “Core Language” section
Java has reflection since version 1.1. It’s actually quite useful in situations and most popular frameworks use it. It depends on you if it turns into a footgun.
See my other comment for more detials but it kind of destroys the type safety of the language. In Java for example, it lets you modify private/protected fields and call private/protected methods.
It’s also slower than accessing a field normally since you need to do a string lookup (but slightly faster than a hashmap/dictionary) so if you use it over a large enough list it’ll cause slowdowns.
Most use cases for it in Java/C# revolve around testing, serialization, and dynamic filtering/sorting. And most of those cases can be handled more safely using macros/attributes (EDIT: and templates as well, though those are also pretty painful to deal with) because that gets handled at compile-time in C/C++.
You have to see it as “root”-mode, it gives you the means to do stuff you need to do but cannot do otherwise. Most times it’s for workarounds for problems you can’t solve. If you use reflection you are fully responsible.
Of course you normally shouldn’t use it, in 10 years I used it maybe one or two times. It’s more of a last resort.
What macros or attributes provide serialization in C++?
My bad, that’s on me, it looks like the C++ libraries I found use either templates or boost’s reflection. There might be a way to do it with macros/metaprogramming but I’m not good enough at C/C++ to know.
I’m learning rust and C at the same time and was mixing up rust’s features with C’s. Rust’s answer to reflection is largely compile-time macros/attributes and I mistakenly assumed C’s attributes worked similarly since they have the same name.
Ah. Rust’s macros and the C preprocessor’s exist in vastly different universes. The C preprocessor is literally just a fancy programmatic copy-and-paste tool. Rust macros read the input source code and then execute other source code (the macro definition) to generate new source code that the compiler then reads.
I love Rust, but Rust macros are arguably more of a footgun than compile-time reflection would be, and as amazing as
serde
is (and no, there’s nothing comparable in standard-compliant C++ yet), there’s a strong argument that compile-time reflection would be a preferable technique for deriving serialization, argument-parsing, and similar feature.
When you are in feature-bloated language competition and your opponent is C++
I can see the footguns, but I can also see the huge QoL improvement - no more
std::enable_if
spam to check if a class type has a member, if you can just check for them.… at least I hope it would be less ugly than
std::enable_if
.There’s a pretty big difference though. To my understanding enable_if happens at compile time, while reflection typically happens at runtime. Using the latter would cause a pretty big performance impact over a (large) list of data.
Wouldn’t compilers be able to optimize runtime things out? I know that GCC does so for some basic RTTI things, when types are known at compile time.
For runtime reflection, no, you’d specifically be able to do things that would be impossible to optimize out.
But the proposal is actually for static (i.e. compile-time) reflection anyway, so the original performance claim is wrong.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking of. I don’t know how C++ could reasonably have Java-like reflections anyway…
C++26 reflection is compiletime
You already can do that with C++20 concepts and the requires expression
template <typename T> concept has_member_foo = requires(T t) { t.foo(); }; // Will fail to instantiate (with nice error // message) if t.foo() is ill-formed template <has_member_foo T> void bar(T t) { // ... } // abbreviated form of above void baz(has_member_foo auto t) { // ... } // verbose form of above template <typename T> requires has_member_foo<T> void biz(T t) { // ... } // same as above but with anonymous concept template <typename T> requires requires(T t) { t.foo(); } void bom(T t) { // ... } // If already inside a function if constexpr (has_member_foo<T>) { // ... } // Same but with anonymous concept if constexpr (requires(T t) { t.foo(); }) { // ... }
I imagine reflections would make the process more straightforward, requires expressions are powerful but either somewhat verbose or possibly incomplete.
For instance, in your example
foo
could have any of the following declarations in a class:void foo();
int foo() const;
template <typename T> foo(T = { }) &&;
decltype([]() { }) foo;
I’m not sure if there’s anything
enable_if
can do that concepts can’t do somewhat better but yeah there’s definitely a lot of subtleties that reflection is going to make nicer or possible in the first placeOh,
std::enable_if
is straight up worse, they’re unreadable and don’t work when two function overloads (idk about variables) have the same signature.I’m not even sure enable_if can do something that constraints can’t at all…
Awesome, it’s fucking overdue!
-std=C++17
, check.