The Knightmare of Initialization in C++

With apologies to Nicolai Josuttis.

Back in the mid-1990s, when I was about in middle school, I received for Christmas a copy of Steve Jackson Games’ Knightmare Chess. It’s a deck of cards that you use to augment the regular game of chess. Like, on your turn instead of moving a piece you might play this card:

Hidden Passage
Move your King to any unoccupied square of the chessboard.

Or this one:

Fatal Attraction
Choose one of your pieces to become a magnet. Until it moves or is captured, no piece of any color (except Kings) in the eight adjacent squares can move. A piece may pass through these squares without effect, but one that stays there (whether or not it makes a capture) becomes trapped.

The idea is that the cards increase the “replay value” of chess, and make it more enjoyable, by injecting a little unpredictability.

Admittedly I have not played Knightmare Chess in decades (if ever), but I find myself wondering who was its target audience. I mean, who’s out there thinking, “I like playing chess, but I just wish it had a few more surprise reversals from time to time.”

I feel the same way about C++11’s braced initialization syntax — or as it’s sometimes called, “unicorn initialization syntax.” This is the C++11-and-later feature that lets us write things like

int arr[] {1, 2, 3, 4};
std::vector<int> vec {1, 2, 3, 4};
std::pair<int, int> p {1, 2};


but also things like

int x {42};
std::vector<char> vc {42, 'x'};
std::vector<std::string> vs {42, "x"};


That is, you can use {} syntax to initialize the elements of a container or algebraic product type; but you can also use {} syntax to call a constructor or even to initialize a plain old scalar type such as int.

So what unicorn initialization gets us is kind of like the Knightmare Chess version of everyday C++. You can play by the ordinary rules for many turns, and then suddenly you’ll get a surprise sprung on you! For example, did you notice that in the snippet above, vc is constructed with 2 elements but vs is constructed with 42 elements? Just as in Knightmare Chess, sometimes the unexpected rule-bending plays to your advantage, and sometimes it plays to your disadvantage.

Peter Sarrett of The Game Report called the game “outstanding”, remarking that it “result[s] [in] an unpredictable game which removes the tedium of standard chess while preserving plenty of scope for strategic play.” [Wikipedia]

The visual difference between these two declarations is slight, but the semantic difference is significant!

std::vector<char> v{42, 'x'};
std::vector<char> v(42, 'x');


Sarrett’s only complaints concerned the printing of the cards themselves, as he found the wording occasionally confusing and the text “rather small, which makes it difficult for players with poorer eyesight to play the game.”

One way to improve the readability of your C++ code is to use the simplest, most visually distinctive way of initializing your variables. For example,

size_t i{};


should certainly be rewritten as

size_t i = 0;


And given

std::vector<char> v{42, 'x'};


I would be at least tempted to rewrite it as

std::vector<char> v = {42, 'x'};


which communicates the intent a little bit better. (However, notice that the inserted = sign doesn’t actually turn off unicorn initialization! vector<string> vs = {42, "x"} is still perfectly valid C++11.)

Several times I’ve spent extra time studying a piece of code trying to puzzle it out, simply because on first glance it can be hard to spot a variable declaration when it is mixed in with other code.

anonymize_if_needed(get_policies());
rcode_t rcode = get_rcode();
define_string("query-type", qtype_.tostring());
define_string("query-class", qclass_.tostring());
define_string("result-code", rcode.tostring());
stringlist policies(get_policies());
if (policies.size() >= 1) {
define_string("policy", policies.back());
}
policies = get_parent_policies();
if (policies.size() >= 1) {
define_string("parent-policy", policies.back());
}


Now, I am likely preaching to the choir here. And vice versa, this single example isn’t likely to make an instant convert of anyone not already in the choir. But still: I claim that it would be easier to read this code — easier to suss out what it’s doing at a glance — if the middle line used = to highlight the fact that a variable is being declared and initialized right there.

stringlist policies = get_policies();


There’s simply no reason to use either () or {} for most variable initializations in C++. If you’re wondering whether to use curly braces or parentheses for construction, your first question should always be: “Do I really need either one?”

Simple guidelines for variable initialization in C++:

• Use = whenever you can.

• Use initializer-list syntax {} only for element initializers (of containers and aggregates).

• Use function-call syntax () to call a constructor, viewed as an object-factory.

Thus:

int i = 0;
std::vector<int> v = {1, 2, 3, 4};
Widget w(name, price, quantity);


It would be perfectly reasonable for the programmer to insert an = sign into that last example, too, by switching it over to Almost Always Auto style. Thanks to guaranteed copy elision, the following line means exactly the same thing as the =-less line above:

auto w = Widget(name, price, quantity);


Notice that my guidelines explicitly conflict with C++ Core Guideline ES.23, which dates from back before guaranteed copy elision was a thing, and from not that long after the invention of unicorn syntax. ES.23 suggests Almost Always Unicorn, writing the examples above as

int i {0};
std::vector<int> v {1, 2, 3, 4};
Widget w {name, price, quantity};


However, I really hope nobody out there is doing that, especially for ints! The = sign is your friend. The { symbol is, more often than not, your enemy; as suggested by the laundry list of exceptions accompanying ES.23.

Honestly, chess is challenging enough; I don’t think it really needed the addition of these new cards that sometimes do one thing and sometimes another. Obviously there are people out there buying this game — I’m sure some of them are even teaching it to their kids. And I’m sure it can be fun, and I’m sure it leads to some great stories! But, you know, sometimes you just want a simple predictable game of old-fashioned chess. And then you leave the cards at home.

Posted 2019-02-18