The keyword explicit accompanies either

a constructor of class X that cannot be used to implicitly convert the first (any only) parameter to type X

C++ [class.conv.ctor] 1) A constructor declared without the function-specifier explicit specifies a conversion from the types of its parameters to the type of its class. Such a constructor is called a converting constructor. 2) An explicit constructor constructs objects just like non-explicit constructors, but does so only where the direct-initialization syntax (8.5) or where casts (5.2.9, 5.4) are explicitly used. A default constructor may be an explicit constructor; such a constructor will be used to perform default-initialization or valueinitialization (8.5).

or a conversion function that is only considered for direct initialization and explicit conversion.

C++ [class.conv.fct] 2) A conversion function may be explicit (7.1.2), in which case it is only considered as a user-defined conversion for direct-initialization (8.5). Otherwise, user-defined conversions are not restricted to use in assignments and initializations.

Overview

Explicit conversion functions and constructors can only be used for explicit conversions (direct initialization or explicit cast operation) while non-explicit constructors and conversion functions can be used for implicit as well as explicit conversions.

/* explicit conversion implicit conversion explicit constructor yes no constructor yes yes explicit conversion function yes no conversion function yes yes */

Example using structures X, Y, Z and functions foo, bar, baz :

Let's look at a small setup of structures and functions to see the difference between explicit and non- explicit conversions.

struct Z { }; struct X { explicit X(int a); // X can be constructed from int explicitly explicit operator Z (); // X can be converted to Z explicitly }; struct Y{ Y(int a); // int can be implicitly converted to Y operator Z (); // Y can be implicitly converted to Z }; void foo(X x) { } void bar(Y y) { } void baz(Z z) { }

Examples regarding constructor:

Conversion of a function argument:

foo(2); // error: no implicit conversion int to X possible foo(X(2)); // OK: direct initialization: explicit conversion foo(static_cast<X>(2)); // OK: explicit conversion bar(2); // OK: implicit conversion via Y(int) bar(Y(2)); // OK: direct initialization bar(static_cast<Y>(2)); // OK: explicit conversion

Object initialization:

X x2 = 2; // error: no implicit conversion int to X possible X x3(2); // OK: direct initialization X x4 = X(2); // OK: direct initialization X x5 = static_cast<X>(2); // OK: explicit conversion Y y2 = 2; // OK: implicit conversion via Y(int) Y y3(2); // OK: direct initialization Y y4 = Y(2); // OK: direct initialization Y y5 = static_cast<Y>(2); // OK: explicit conversion

Examples regarding conversion functions:

X x1{ 0 }; Y y1{ 0 };

Conversion of a function argument:

baz(x1); // error: X not implicitly convertible to Z baz(Z(x1)); // OK: explicit initialization baz(static_cast<Z>(x1)); // OK: explicit conversion baz(y1); // OK: implicit conversion via Y::operator Z() baz(Z(y1)); // OK: direct initialization baz(static_cast<Z>(y1)); // OK: explicit conversion

Object initialization:

Z z1 = x1; // error: X not implicitly convertible to Z Z z2(x1); // OK: explicit initialization Z z3 = Z(x1); // OK: explicit initialization Z z4 = static_cast<Z>(x1); // OK: explicit conversion Z z1 = y1; // OK: implicit conversion via Y::operator Z() Z z2(y1); // OK: direct initialization Z z3 = Z(y1); // OK: direct initialization Z z4 = static_cast<Z>(y1); // OK: explicit conversion

Why use explicit conversion functions or constructors?

Conversion constructors and non-explicit conversion functions may introduce ambiguity.

Consider a structure V , convertible to int , a structure U implicitly constructible from V and a function f overloaded for U and bool respectively.

struct V { operator bool() const { return true; } }; struct U { U(V) { } }; void f(U) { } void f(bool) { }

A call to f is ambiguous if passing an object of type V .

V x; f(x); // error: call of overloaded 'f(V&)' is ambiguous

The compiler does not know wether to use the constructor of U or the conversion function to convert the V object into a type for passing to f .

If either the constructor of U or the conversion function of V would be explicit , there would be no ambiguity since only the non-explicit conversion would be considered. If both are explicit the call to f using an object of type V would have to be done using an explicit conversion or cast operation.

Conversion constructors and non-explicit conversion functions may lead to unexpected behaviour.

Consider a function printing some vector:

void print_intvector(std::vector<int> const &v) { for (int x : v) std::cout << x << '

'; }

If the size-constructor of the vector would not be explicit it would be possible to call the function like this:

print_intvector(3);

What would one expect from such a call? One line containing 3 or three lines containing 0 ? (Where the second one is what happens.)

Using the explicit keyword in a class interface enforces the user of the interface to be explicit about a desired conversion.

As Bjarne Stroustrup puts it (in "The C++ Programming Language", 4th Ed., 35.2.1, pp. 1011) on the question why std::duration cannot be implicitly constructed from a plain number: