What’s Different in the Revised Language Definition?
__try_cast becomes safe_cast<>
Modifying an existing structure is a much different and, in some sense, a more difficult experience than crafting the initial structure; there are fewer degrees of freedom, and the solution tends towards a compromise between an ideal restructuring and what is practicable given the existing structural dependencies. If you have ever typeset a book, for example, you know that making corrections to an existing page is constrained by the need to limit the reformatting to just that page: you cannot allow the text/code/figure/table to spill over into subsequent pages, and so you cannot add or cut too much (or too little), and it too often feels as if the meaning of the correction is compromised in favor of its fit on the page.
Language modification is an obvious second example. Back in the early 1990s, for example, as Object-Orienting programming became an important paradigm, the need for a type-safe downcast facility in C++ became pressing. Downcasting is the user-explicit conversion of a base-class pointer or reference to a pointer or reference of a derived class. Downcasting requires an explicit cast because, if the base class pointer is not a kind of derived class object, the program is likely to, well, do really bad things. The problem is that the actual type of the base class pointer is an aspect of the runtime; it therefore cannot be checked by the compiler. Or, to rephrase that, a downcast facility, just like a virtual function call, requires some form of dynamic resolution. This raises two questions:
- Why should a downcast be necessary in the Object-Oriented paradigm? Isn’t the virtual function mechanism sufficient in all cases? That is, why can’t one claim that any need for a downcast (or a cast of any sort) is a design failure on the part of the programmer?
- Why should support of a downcast be a problem in C++? After all, it is not a problem in object-oriented languages such as Smalltalk (or, subsequently, Java and C#)? What is it about C++ that makes supporting a downcast facility difficult?
A virtual function represents a type-dependent algorithm common to a family of types (I am not considering Interfaces, which are not supported in ISO C++ but are available in C++/CLI and which represent an interesting design alternative). The design of that family is typically represented by a class hierarchy in which there is an abstract base class declaring the common interface (the virtual functions) and a set of concrete derived classes which represent the actual family types in the application domain. A Light hierarchy in a Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) application domain, for example, will have common attributes such as color, intensity, position, on, off, and so on. One can pepper one’s world space with a fistful of lights, and control them through the common interface without worrying whether a particular light is a spotlight, a directional light, a non-directional light (think of the
A second reason to downcast falls out of the dual nature of polymorphism. One way to think of polymorphism is being divided into a passive and dynamic pair of forms. A virtual invocation (and a downcast facility) represents dynamic uses of polymorphism: one is performing an action based on the actual type of the base class pointer at that particular instance in the execution of the program. Assigning a derived class object to its base class pointer, however, is a passive form of polymorphism; it is using the polymorphism as a transport mechanism. This is the main use of Object, for example, in the pre-generic CLR. When used passively, the base class pointer chosen for transport and storage typically offers an interface that is too abstract. Object, for example, provides roughly five methods through its interface; any more specific behavior requires an explicit downcast. For example, if we wish to adjust the angle of our spotlight or it’s rate of fall off, we would need to downcast explicitly. A virtual interface within a family of sub-types cannot practicably be a superset of all the possible methods of its many children, and so a downcast facility will always be needed within an object-oriented language.
If a safe downcast facility is needed in an object-oriented language, then why did it take C++ so long to add one? The problem is in how to make the information as to the run-time type of the pointer available. In the case of a virtual function, as most people know by now, the run-time information is set up in two parts by the compiler: (a) the class object contains an additional virtual table pointer member (either at the beginning or end of the class object; that’s has an interesting history in itself) that addresses the appropriate virtual table – so, for example, a spotlight object addresses a spotlight virtual table, a directional light, a directional light virtual table, etc. and (b) each virtual function has an associated fixed slot in the table, and the actual instance to invoke is represented by the address stored within the table. So, for example, the virtual Light destructor might be associated with slot 0, Color with slot 1, and so on. This is an efficient if inflexible strategy because it is set up at compile-time and represents a minimal overhead.
The problem, then, is how to make the type information available to the pointer without changing the size of C++ pointers, either by perhaps adding a second address or directly adding some sort of type encoding. This would not be acceptable to those programmers (and programs) that choose not to use the object-oriented paradigm – which was still the predominant user community. Another possibility was to introduce a special pointer for polymorphic class types, but this would be awfully confusing, and make it very difficult to intermix the two – particularly with issues of pointer arithmetic. Nor would it be acceptable to maintain a run-time table associating each pointer with its currently associated type, and dynamically updating it.
The problem then is a pair of user-communities which have different but legitimate programming aspirations. The solution needs to be a compromise between the two communities, allowing each not only their aspiration but the ability to interoperate. This means that the solutions offered by either side are likely to be infeasible and the solution implemented finally to be less than perfect. The actual resolution revolves around the definition of a polymorphic class: a polymorphic class is one that contains a virtual function. A polymorphic class supports a dynamic type-safe downcast. This solves the maintain-the-pointer-as-address problem because all polymorphic classes contain that additional pointer member to their associated virtual table. The associated type information, therefore, can be stored in an expanded virtual table structure. The cost of the type-safe downcast is (almost) localized to users of the facility.
The next issue concerning the type-safe downcast was its syntax. Because it is a cast, the original proposal to the ISO/ANSI C++ committee used the unadorned cast syntax, so that one wrote, for example,
spot = ( SpotLight* ) plight;
but this was rejected by the committee because it did not allow the user to control the cost of the cast. If the dynamic type-safe downcast had the same syntax as the previously unsafe but cast static cast notation, then it becomes a substitution, and the user has no ability to suppress the runtime overhead in cases where it is unnecessary and perhaps too costly.
In general, in C++, there is always a mechanism by which to suppress compiler-supported functionality. For example, we can turn off the virtual mechanism by either using the class scope operator (Box::rotate(angle)) or by invoking the virtual method through a class object (rather than a pointer or reference of that class) – this latter suppression is not required by the language but is a quality of implementation is similar to the suppression of the construction of a temporary in a declaration of the form
X x = X::X( 10 ); // compilers are free to optimize away the temporary …
So the proposal was taken back for further consideration, and a number of alternative notations were considered, and the one brought back to the committee was of the form (?type), which indicated its undetermined – that is, dynamic nature. This gave the user the ability to toggle between the two forms – static or dynamic – but no one was too pleased with it. The third and successful notation is the now standard dynamic_cast<type>, which was generalized to a set of four new-style cast notations.
In ISO C++, dynamic_cast returns 0 when applied to inappropriate pointer type, and throws a std::bad_cast exception when applied to a reference type. In the original language design, applying dynamic_cast to a managed reference type (because of its pointer representation) always returned 0. __try_cast<type> was introduced as an analog to the exception throwing variant of the dynamic_cast, except that it throws System::InvalidCastException if the cast fails.
In the revised language, __try_cast has been recast as safe_cast, and its definition is provided within the stdcli::language namespace (it is not a keyword as are the other four cast notations). For example, here is a code fragment in the original language (with either some nifty or confusing look-ahead at changes to the declaration and use of a managed array),
public __gc class ItemVerb;
public __gc class ItemVerbCollection
ItemVerb *EnsureVerbArray() 
return __try_cast<ItemVerb *>(verbList->ToArray(__typeof(ItemVerb *)));
Here is the same code fragment in the revised language,
using namespace stdcli::language;
public ref class ItemVerb;
public ref class ItemVerbCollection
return safe_cast<array<ItemVerb^>^>(verbList->ToArray( typeid<ItemVerb^> ));
[Notice, too, that __typeof has been replaced by an additional form of typeid that returns a Type^ when passed a managed type, where the template notation distinguishes the managed from that of the native form of the operator. This integrates the two analogous operations with an analogous syntax and avoid introducing a new keyword. In the introduction of the gcnew operator, you see an alternative design solution; that is, one moving from a transparent reuse of the new operator (with an optional __gc modifier in cases of ambiguity) in the original language design to the introduction of a separate keyword (to clearly indicate the separate heaps from which the allocation is being made).]
To finish this entry, we need to return to that trade-off design space with which I opened this blog entry. It is the same one that led to the introduction of the new-style notation.
One the one-hand, in the managed world, it is important to allow for verifiable code by taming the ability of programmers to cast between types in ways that leave the code unverifiable. This is a critical aspect of the dynamic programming paradigm represented by C++/CLI. For this reason, instances of old-style casts are recast internally as run-time casts, so that, for example,
// internally recast into the equivalent safe_cast expression above
( array<ItemVerb^>^ ) verbList->ToArray( typeid<ItemVerb^> );
On the other hand, because polymorphism provides both an active and a passive mode, it is sometimes necessary to perform a downcast simply to gain access to the non-virtual API of a subtype. This can happen, for example, with the member(s) of a class that wish to address any type within the hierarchy [passive polymorphism as a transport mechanism] but for which the actual instance within a particular program context is known. In this case, the system programmer feels very strongly that having a run-time check of the cast is an unacceptable overhead. If C++/CLI is to serve as the system programming language of .NET, it must provide some means of allowing a compile-time [that is, static] downcast. This is provided in the revised language with the static_cast notation:
// ok: cast performed at compile-time. No run-time check for type correctness
static_cast< array<ItemVerb^>^>( verbList->ToArray( typeid<ItemVerb^> ));
The problem, of course, is that there is no way to guarantee that the programmer doing the static_cast is correct and well-intentioned; that is, there is no way to force managed code to be verifiable. This is a more urgent concern under the dynamic program paradigm than under native, but is not sufficient within a system programming language to disallow the user the ability to toggle between a static and run-time cast.
What are the weaknesses of the design as it stands? Well, I see two, in ascending order of being problematic.
- The purpose of the new cast notation is to call attention to the severity of the cast being performed – static_cast means that it is well-defined, but still requires some manual intervention by the programmer. It is the most benign of casts. Morally, it is the closest to goodness. Then there is const_cast. This is less good. We are throwing away something that prevents modification. This is potentially very disruptive to the semantic integrity of the program, and so we label it as such. [An historical aside: during one of the betas of cfront Release 2.0, Stroustrup removed the ability of a user to cast away const in the old-style cast notation. We discovered that none of our beta users could compile their code-base without support for casting away const, and that none of them were so alarmed at the presence of their const-casting as to feel the need to recast their code. Thus, in a subsequent beta, support for const-casting was reintroduced.] And then of course there is that villainous no-count reinterpret_cast that casts a pall of perfidy on the programmer making use of it. If we are to believe that verifiability is an important aspect of .NET programming, then the use of static_cast as the violating notation is at best misleading. It fails to register what is going on. If the idea behind the use of safe_cast is to indicate a verfiable cast, then the static toggle for performance should be either unsafe_cast or down_cast. In this case, I suggest the design is being penny-wise in its saving the cost of additional contextual keyword and pound foolish.
- The result of this design is a performance C++/CLI trap and pitfall. In native programming, there is no difference in performance between the old-style cast notation and the new-style static_cast notation. But in the new language design, the old-style cast notation is significantly more expensive than the use of the new-style static_cast notation since the compiler internally transforms the use of the old-style notation into a run-time check that throws an exception. Moreover, it also changes the execution profile of the code because it results in an uncaught exception bringing down the application – perhaps wisely, but the same error would not cause that exception if the static_cast notation were used. One might argue, well, this will help prod users into using the new-style notation. But only when it fails; otherwise, it will simply cause programs that use the old-style notation to run significantly slower with no visible understanding of why, similar to the following C programmer pitfalls:
// pitfall # 1: initialization can remove a temporary class object, assignment cannot
m = another_matrix;
// pitfall # 2: declaration of class objects far from their use
Matrix m( 2000, 2000 ), n( 2000, 2000 );
if ( ! mumble ) return;
A New Tradition: Question of the Day
It is the nature of science – and language design is a serious part of computer science – that participants disagree, and that debate follows in which one participant or the other may prove wrong. Einstein, for example, did not accept Bohr’s theory of quantum mechanics and periodically shot off challenges to its correctness, and Bohr successfully deflected each missive. While it is far too preposterous to suggest that these two points above have any relationship beyond the most trivial to the great physics debate of the past century, it does the suggest a first question in a new blog tradition I would like to initiate: to ask an interesting question about historical scientific endeavors.
Bohr’s original quantum model, which he devised to explain the behavior of the hydrogen atom, did not scale to atoms which contained multiple electrons. Heisenberg and Schrodinger provided competing theories explaining a generalized quantum mechanics. Each dismissed the other’s work publicly in rather harsh terms as hogwash. In a similar but more elegant manner, Einstein dismissed quantum theory, and misspent most of his life in
disclaimer: This posting is provided “AS IS” with no warranties, and confers no rights.