# constexpr function parameters

NOTE: Welp, this post is about 3 years late. But… it still seems to come up from time to time and the technique (trick?) doesn’t seem to be widely known, so I figure I should write it down.

## Introduction

Since C++11, functions can be marked constexpr. What does this really mean? Well, it specifically does not mean that it will be evaluated at compile-time. It actually means that it is possible for it to be evaluated at compile-time.

Why is this important? Well, it means that the function needs to be written in such a way that the parameters can be compile-time or runtime values.

Consider the following contrived example:

constexpr void f(std::size_t n) {
static_assert(n == 42, "");  // not allowed.
}


This function is not allowed because n could be a runtime value, in which case it would violate the requirement that static_assert must be given a constant expression.

## Non-Type Template Parameter

The example above is pretty simple to fix though, since we can just make the function parameter be a non-type template parameter.

template <std::size_t N>
constexpr void f() {
static_assert(N == 42, "");
}


Simple enough. But what if it’s a slightly more complex type, like std::tuple<int, int>? Maybe something like this…?

template <std::tuple<int, int> X>  // not allowed.
constexpr void f() {
static_assert(std::get<0>(X) == 101, "");
static_assert(std::get<1>(X) == 202, "");
}


This doesn’t work because we’re not allowed to pass an arbitrary literal type as a non-type template parameter.

N3413 proposes to allow arbitrary literal types for non-type template parameters.

Why does this restriction on non-type template parameters exist in the first place?

For one, C++ has a fundamental notion of “same type”. Given values x and y, we have to be able to answer whether foo<x> and foo<y> are the same type. Currently, the non-type template parameters are restricted such that this question can be answered using the built-in value equality comparison. Once user-defined literal types are involved, we have to be able to find a unique operator== across translation units to perform equality comparisons, and also mangle the same types to the same name. This potentially introduces a lot of complexity into the linker.

NOTE: This doesn’t cover the entirety of the issue since “same type” doesn’t cover function templates. For example, given the function template f above, f<std::make_tuple(101, 202)> and f<std::make_tuple(23, 24)> both have the type void (). Thanks tcanens for the reddit comment!

Can we get around this limitation?

## Value-Encoded Type

The std::integral_constant class template takes a type and a value of that type. It essentially encodes the value as part of the type.

This isn’t directly helpful for us though, since the value still needs to meet the requirements of a non-type template parameter. However, the idea of shoving a value inside the type remains useful. We simply need a way to encode the value inside the type without the value being part of the type.

Okay, I admit that may be a bit confusing. Here is the code:

struct S {
static constexpr auto value() { return std::make_tuple(101, 202); }
};


Here, we’ve created a type S that encodes the value std::make_tuple(101, 202) without the value actually being part of the type. The tuple(101, 202) is not really part of the type S, but we can extract the value from S (via S::value()). The compiler therefore must somehow associate the value with the type, which I consider to be a valid encoding.

We can then pass it into a function and use it like this:

template <typename X>
constexpr void f(X) {
static_assert(std::get<0>(X::value()) == 101, "");
static_assert(std::get<1>(X::value()) == 202, "");
}

int main() {
struct S {
static constexpr auto value() { return std::make_tuple(101, 202); }
};
f(S{});
}


## Macros (< C++17)

I don’t like macros either. But at least this is a pretty simple one.

#define CONSTANT(...) \
union { static constexpr auto value() { return __VA_ARGS__; } }


NOTE: Shout-out to @lichray for pointing out that anonymous struct is not part of the C++ standard in this tweet!

The above example can then be written like this:

template <typename X>
constexpr void f(X) {
static_assert(std::get<0>(X::value()) == 101, "");
static_assert(std::get<1>(X::value()) == 202, "");
}

int main() {
using S = CONSTANT(std::make_tuple(101, 202));
f(S{});
}


We could also have a version that returns an instance of such a type so that we don’t have to have a preceding using-declaration every time.

#define CONSTANT_VALUE(...) \
[] { using R = CONSTANT(__VA_ARGS__); return R{}; }()


With this we could pass it directly to the function:

template <typename X>
constexpr void f(X) {
static_assert(std::get<0>(X::value()) == 101, "");
static_assert(std::get<1>(X::value()) == 202, "");
}

int main() {
f(CONSTANT_VALUE(std::make_tuple(101, 202)));
}


Note that this macro introduces a new type for every value. We’re essentially “solving” the problem of performing equality comparison of literal types by punting it entirely and saying “they’re never equal”. For example,

auto x = CONSTANT_VALUE(42);
auto y = CONSTANT_VALUE(42);

static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(x), decltype(y)>::value, "");  // fail!


Initially, I was concerned about the potential of introducing too many types. But this is actually similar to how lambdas work. Specifically, lambdas that happen to be lexically equivalent don’t have the same type.

auto x = [] {};
auto y = [] {};

static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(x), decltype(y)>::value, "");  // fail!


It seems that “having too many types” may not be an issue.

## Compile-Time String

Compile-time strings in the context of static reflection and metaprogramming are a point of discussion in the C++ committee. Meanwhile, this macro can be used to capture and pass around compile-time strings, or even a std::string_view.

#include <string_view>

template <typename StrView>
constexpr void f(StrView) {
static_assert(StrView::value() == "hello", "");
}

int main() {
using namespace std::literals;
f(CONSTANT_VALUE("hello"sv));
}


This technique is also used in Boost.Hana to implement BOOST_HANA_STRING which came out of a conversation with Louis Dionne during our first meeting back in CppCon 2014 😊

## C++17

Since we have constexpr lambdas in C++17, we can ditch the macros from above and pass around the lambdas directly. For example,

template <typename X>
constexpr void f(X x) {
static_assert(std::get<0>(x()) == 101, "");
static_assert(std::get<1>(x()) == 202, "");
}

int main() {
f([] { return std::make_tuple(101, 202); });
}


## Final Remarks

I’ve used this technique for mpark/format which is an experimental string format library where the format string is parsed and checked at compile-time.

I’d love to hear about your use cases if you find this useful!

Thanks to Louis Dionne for reviewing this post!