为什么使用 static_cast<int>(x) 而不是 (int)x? [英] Why use static_cast<int>(x) instead of (int)x?
问题描述
我听说 static_cast 函数应该比 C 风格或简单函数风格的转换更受欢迎.这是真的?为什么?
I've heard that the static_cast function should be preferred to C-style or simple function-style casting. Is this true? Why?
推荐答案
主要的原因是经典的 C 强制转换没有区分我们所说的 static_cast<>(), reinterpret_cast<>()、const_cast<>() 和 dynamic_cast<>().这四件事完全不同.
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.
static_cast<>() 通常是安全的.语言中有一个有效的转换，或者一个合适的构造函数使之成为可能.唯一有点冒险的时候是当你转换到一个继承的类时；您必须通过语言外部的方式(如对象中的标志)确保该对象实际上是您声称的后代.只要检查结果(指针)或考虑可能的异常(参考)，dynamic_cast<>() 就是安全的.
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 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).
另一方面，reinterpret_cast<>()(或const_cast<>())总是危险的.你告诉编译器:相信我:我知道这看起来不像 foo(这看起来好像它不可变)，但它是".
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".
第一个问题是，如果不查看大量分散的代码并了解所有规则，几乎不可能知道在 C 风格的强制转换中会出现哪一个.
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.
让我们假设这些:
class CDerivedClass : public CMyBase {...};
class CMyOtherStuff {...} ;
CMyBase *pSomething; // filled somewhere
现在，这两个编译方式相同:
Now, these two are compiled the same way:
CDerivedClass *pMyObject;
pMyObject = static_cast<CDerivedClass*>(pSomething); // Safe; as long as we checked
pMyObject = (CDerivedClass*)(pSomething); // Same as static_cast<>
// Safe; as long as we checked
// but harder to read
但是，让我们看看这个几乎相同的代码:
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!!!
如您所见，如果不了解所涉及的所有类，就没有简单的方法来区分这两种情况.
As you can see, there is no easy way to distinguish between the two situations without knowing a lot about all the classes involved.
第二个问题是 C 风格的强制转换太难定位了.在复杂的表达式中，很难看到 C 风格的强制转换.如果没有完整的 C++ 编译器前端，几乎不可能编写需要定位 C 样式转换(例如搜索工具)的自动化工具.另一方面，很容易搜索static_cast<"或reinterpret_cast<".
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.
这意味着，不仅 C 风格的强制转换更危险，而且要找到它们以确保它们是正确的要困难得多.
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.
这篇关于为什么使用 static_cast<int>(x) 而不是 (int)x?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
