One of the new features in C++11 aimed at increased code efficiency is the emplace family of methods in containers. std::vector , for example, has an emplace_back method to parallel push_back , and emplace to parallel insert .

Here's a short demonstration of the benefits these new methods bring:

class MyKlass { public : MyKlass ( int ii_ , float ff_ ) {...} private : {...} }; some function { std :: vector < MyKlass > v ; v . push_back ( MyKlass ( 2 , 3.14f )); v . emplace_back ( 2 , 3.14f ); }

If you trace the execution of the constructors and destructor of MyKlass , you'll see something like the following for the push_back call:

Constructor for a temporary MyKlass object

object Move constructor (if one was defined for MyKlass , otherwise a copy constructor) for the object actually allocated inside the vector

, otherwise a copy constructor) for the object actually allocated inside the vector Destructor for the temporary

This is quite a lot of work. Much of it isn't required though, since the object passed to push_back is obviously an rvalue that ceases to exist after the statement is completed; there's no reason to create and destroy a temporary - why not just construct the object inside the vector directly?

This is exactly what emplace_back does. For the v.emplace_back(2, 3.14f) call above, all you see is a single constructor invocation. This is the object constructed inside the vector. No temporaries are needed.

emplace_back accomplishes this by invoking the constructor of MyKlass on its own and forwarding its arguments to the constructor. This feat is made possible by two new features in C++11: variadic templates and perfect forwarding. In this article I want to explain how perfect forwarding works and how to use it.

The perfect forwarding problem Let func(E1, E2, ..., En) be an arbitrary function call with generic parameters E1, E2, ..., En . We'd like to write a function wrapper such that wrapper(E1, E2, ..., En) is equivalent to func(E1, E2, ..., En) . In other words, we'd like to define a function with generic parameters that forwards its parameters perfectly to some other function. To have something concrete to relate this definition to, think of the emplace_back method discussed above. vector<T>::emplace_back forwards its parameters to a constructor of T , without actually knowing how T looks like. Next, I'm going to show a few examples of how we might approach this in pre-11 C++. For simplicity's sake, I'll put variadic templates aside; let's assume all we need to forward is two arguments. The first approach that comes to mind is: template < typename T1 , typename T2 > void wrapper ( T1 e1 , T2 e2 ) { func ( e1 , e2 ); } This will obviously not work if func accepts its parameters by reference, since wrapper introduces a by-value passing step. If func modifies its by-reference parameter, it won't be visible in the caller of wrapper (only the copy created by wrapper itself will be affected). OK, then, we can make wrapper accept its parameters by reference. This should not interfere with func 's taking parameters by value, because the call to func within wrapper will create the required copy. template < typename T1 , typename T2 > void wrapper ( T1 & e1 , T2 & e2 ) { func ( e1 , e2 ); } This has another problem, though. Rvalues cannot be bound to function parameters that are references, so the following completely reasonable calls will now fail: wrapper ( 42 , 3.14f ); // error: invalid initialization of // non-const reference from // an rvalue wrapper ( i , foo_returning_float ()); // same error And no, making those reference parameters const won't cut it either, because func may legitimately want to accept non- const reference parameters. What remains is the brute-force approach taken by some libraries: define overloads for both const and non- const references: template < typename T1 , typename T2 > void wrapper ( T1 & e1 , T2 & e2 ) { func ( e1 , e2 ); } template < typename T1 , typename T2 > void wrapper ( const T1 & e1 , T2 & e2 ) { func ( e1 , e2 ); } template < typename T1 , typename T2 > void wrapper ( T1 & e1 , const T2 & e2 ) { func ( e1 , e2 ); } template < typename T1 , typename T2 > void wrapper ( const T1 & e1 , const T2 & e2 ) { func ( e1 , e2 ); } Exponential explosion. You can imagine how much fun this becomes when we want to cover some reasonable amount of function parameters. To make things worse, C++11 adds rvalue references to the mix (which we'd also want to forward correctly), and this clearly isn't a scalable solution.

Reference collapsing and special type deduction for rvalues To explain how C++11 solves the perfect forwarding problem, we have to first understand two new rules that were added to the language. Reference collapsing is the easier one to explain, so let's start with it. Taking a reference to a reference is illegal in C++. However, it can sometimes arise in the context of templates and type deduction: template < typename T > void baz ( T t ) { T & k = t ; } What happens if we call this function as follows: int ii = 4 ; baz < int &> ( ii ); In the template instantiation, T is explicitly set to int& . So what is the type of k inside? What the compiler "sees" is int& & - while this isn't something the user is allowed to write in code, the compiler simply infers a single reference from this. In fact, prior to C++11 this wasn't standardized, but many compilers accepted such code anyway because these cases occasionally arise in template metaprogramming. With the addition of rvalue references in C++11, it became important to define what happens when various reference types augment (e.g. what does int&& & mean?). The result is the reference collapsing rule. The rule is very simple. & always wins. So & & is & , and so are && & and & && . The only case where && emerges from collapsing is && && . You can think of it as a logical-OR, with & being 1 and && being 0. The other addition to C++11 relevant to this article is special type deduction rules for rvalue references in some cases . Given a function template like: template < class T > void func ( T && t ) { } Don't let T&& fool you here - t is not an rvalue reference . When it appears in a type-deducing context, T&& acquires a special meaning. When func is instantiated, T depends on whether the argument passed to func is an lvalue or an rvalue. If it's an lvalue of type U , T is deduced to U& . If it's an rvalue, T is deduced to U : func ( 4 ); // 4 is an rvalue: T deduced to int double d = 3.14 ; func ( d ); // d is an lvalue; T deduced to double& float f () {...} func ( f ()); // f() is an rvalue; T deduced to float int bar ( int i ) { func ( i ); // i is an lvalue; T deduced to int& } This rule may seem unusual and strange. That's because it is. However, it starts making sense when we realize it was designed to solve the perfect forwarding problem.

Solving perfect forwarding with std::forward Let's get back to our original wrapper template. Here's how it should be written in C++11: template < typename T1 , typename T2 > void wrapper ( T1 && e1 , T2 && e2 ) { func ( forward < T1 > ( e1 ), forward < T2 > ( e2 )); } And this is forward : template < class T > T && forward ( typename std :: remove_reference < T >:: type & t ) noexcept { return static_cast < T &&> ( t ); } template < class T > T && forward ( typename std :: remove_reference < T >:: type && t ) noexcept { return static_cast < T &&> ( t ); } Let's say we call: int ii ...; float ff ...; wrapper ( ii , ff ); Examining the first argument (since the second is handled similarly): ii is an lvalue, so T1 is deduced to int& following the special deduction rules. We get the call func(forward<int&>(e1), ...) . Therefore, forward is instantiated with int& and we get this version of it: int & && forward ( int & t ) noexcept { return static_cast < int & &&> ( t ); } Now it's time to apply the reference collapsing rule: int & forward ( int & t ) noexcept { return static_cast < int &> ( t ); } In other words, the argument is passed on by reference to func , as needed for lvalues. The other case to handle is: wrapper ( 42 , 3.14f ); Here the arguments are rvalues, so T1 is deduced to int . We get the call func(forward<int>(e1), ...) . Therefore, forward is instantiated with int and we get this version of it : int && forward ( int && t ) noexcept { return static_cast < int &&> ( t ); } One can see forward as a pretty wrapper around static_cast<T&&>(t) when T can be deduced to either U& or U&& , depending on the kind of argument to the wrapper (lvalue or rvalue). Now we get wrapper as a single template that handles all kinds of forwarding cleanly. The forward template exists in C++11, in the <utility> header, as std::forward . Another thing I want to mention is the use of std::remove_reference<T> . In fact, it you think about it, forward could do without it. Reference collapsing does the job already, so std::remove_reference<T> is superfluous. It's there to turn the T& t into a non-deducing context (according to the C++ standard, section 14.8.2.5), thus forcing us to explicitly specify the template parameter when calling std::forward .

Universal references In his talks, blog posts and book, Scott Myers gave the name "universal references" to rvalues that appear in a type-deducing context. Whether this is a useful mnemonic or not depends on the beholder; personally, when I first read the relevant chapters of the new "Effective C++", I found myself seriously confused on this topic. Only later, when I understood the underlying mechanisms (reference collapsing and special deduction rules), the topic became somewhat clearer. The trap is that saying "universal references" is surely more succinct and nice than "rvalue references in a type deducing context", but once you want to really understand some piece of code (rather than just cargo-culting boilerplate), you'll find that avoiding the full definition is impossible.