There’s a subtle redundancy lurking in this simple variable definition:
In C++, we are required to provide an explicit type for all objects. Thus, we’ve specified that variable
d is of type double.
However, the literal value 5.0 used to initialize d also has type double
(implicitly determined via the format of the literal).
Related content
We discuss how literal types are determined in lesson 5.2 -- Literals.
In cases where we want a variable and its initializer to have the same type, we’re effectively providing the same type information twice.
Type deduction for initialized variables
Type deduction (also sometimes called type inference) is a feature that
allows the compiler to deduce the type of an object from the object’s initializer. When defining a
variable, type deduction can be invoked by using the auto keyword can be used in place of
the variable’s type:
In the first case, because 5.0 is a double literal, the compiler will deduce that variable
d should be of type double. In the second case, the expression
1 + 2 yields an int result, so variable i will be of type int. In
the third case, i was previously deduced to be of type int, so x
will also be deduced to be of type int.
Warning
Prior to C++17, auto d{ 5.0 }; would deduce d to be of type
std::initializer_list<double> rather than double. This was fixed in
C++17, and many compilers (such as gcc and Clang) have back-ported this change to previous language
standards.
If you are using C++14 or older, and the above example doesn’t compile on your compiler, use copy
initialization with auto instead (auto d = 5.0).
Because function calls are valid expressions, we can even use type deduction when our initializer is a non-void function call:
The add() function returns an int value, so the compiler will deduce that
variable sum should have type int.
Literal suffixes can be used in combination with type deduction to specify a particular type:
Variables using type deduction may also use other specifiers/qualifiers, such as const or
constexpr:
Type deduction must have something to deduce from
Type deduction will not work for objects that either do not have initializers or have empty initializers.
It also will not work when the initializer has type void (or any other incomplete type).
Thus, the following is not valid:
Although using type deduction for fundamental data types only saves a few (if any) keystrokes, in future
lessons we will see examples where the types get complex and lengthy (and in some cases, can be hard to
figure out). In those cases, using auto can save a lot of typing (and typos).
Related content
The type deduction rules for pointers and references are a bit more complex. We discuss these in 12.14 -- Type deduction with pointers, references, and const.
Type deduction drops const from the
deduced type
In most cases, type deduction will drop the const from deduced types. For example:
In the above example, a has type const int, but when deducing a type for
variable b using a as the initializer, type deduction deduces the type as
int, not const int.
If you want a deduced type to be const, you must supply the const yourself as part of the
definition:
In this example, the type deduced from a will be int (the const is
dropped), but because we’ve re-added a const qualifier during the definition of variable
b, variable b will have type const int.
Type deduction for string literals
For historical reasons, string literals in C++ have a strange type. Therefore, the following probably won’t work as expected:
If you want the type deduced from a string literal to be std::string or
std::string_view, you’ll need to use the s or sv literal suffixes
(introduced in lessons 5.7 --
Introduction to std::string and 5.8 -- Introduction to
std::string_view):
But in such cases, it may be better to not use type deduction.
Type deduction and constexpr
Because constexpr is not part of the type system, it cannot be deduced as part of type
deduction. However, a constexpr variable is implicitly const, and this const will be
dropped during type deduction (and can be readded if desired):
Type deduction benefits and downsides
Type deduction is not only convenient, but also has a number of other benefits.
First, if two or more variables are defined on sequential lines, the names of the variables will be lined up, helping to increase readability:
Second, type deduction only works on variables that have initializers, so if you are in the habit of using type deduction, it can help avoid unintentionally uninitialized variables:
Third, you are guaranteed that there will be no unintended performance-impacting conversions:
Type deduction also has a few downsides.
First, type deduction obscures an object’s type information in the code. Although a good IDE should be able to show you the deduced type (e.g. when hovering a variable), it’s still a bit easier to make type-based mistakes when using type deduction.
For example:
In the above code, if we’d explicitly specified y as type double, y would have
been a double even though we accidentally provided an int literal initializer. With type deduction,
y will be deduced to be of type int.
Here’s another example:
In this example, it’s less clear that we’re getting an integer division rather than a floating-point division.
Similar cases occur when a variable is unsigned. Since we don’t want to mix signed and
unsigned values, explicitly knowing that a variable has an unsigned type is generally something that
shouldn’t be obscured.
Second, if the type of an initializer changes, the type of a variable using type deduction will also change, perhaps unexpectedly. Consider:
If the return type of add changes from int to double, or gravity changes from
int to double, sum will also change type from int to double.
Overall, the modern consensus is that type deduction is generally safe to use for objects, and that doing so can help make your code more readable by de-emphasizing type information so the logic of your code stands out better.
Best practice
Use type deduction for your variables when the type of the object doesn’t matter.
Favor an explicit type when you require a specific type that differs from the type of the initializer, or when your object is used in a context where making the type obvious is useful.
Author’s note
In future lessons, we’ll continue to use explicit types instead of type deduction when we feel showing the type information is helpful to understanding a concept or example.