# “Universal reference” or “forwarding reference”?

Two convergent observations from my corner of the C++ world:

1. Multiple book authors pushing the idea that Scott Meyers’ original phrase “universal reference” (for T&&) is actually preferable to the now-Standard term “forwarding reference.” For example, Nico Josuttis, in C++ Move Semantics: The Complete Guide:

The important feature of universal references is that they can bind to objects and expressions of any value category.

And someone else, elsewhere:

[The name “universal reference”] perfectly describes what these references represent: A reference to anything. A universal reference.

2. Multiple C++ learners (or perhaps intermediate-level C++ programmers having a senior moment) asking whether there’s an easy way to pass an rvalue expression to a function expecting a const lvalue reference.

These latter programmers have somehow internalized the advanced notion that “lvalue references don’t bind to rvalues (and rvalue references don’t bind to lvalues)” without first learning that const X& binds to everything!

C++98 didn’t have rvalue references, only “references” — what we now call “lvalue references.” The rule was simply that a mutable reference would bind only to a mutable lvalue, but a const reference could bind to anything.

void change(int&);
void observe(const int&);

int main() {
int i = 41;
change(i);    // OK, lvalue
change(42);   // Error, rvalue
observe(i);   // OK, lvalue
observe(42);  // OK, rvalue
}


This applies even when that type int comes from type deduction:

template<class T>
void observe(const T&);

int main() {
int i = 41;
const int ci = 42;
observe(i);   // OK, lvalue, T=int
observe(ci);  // OK, lvalue, T=int
observe(43);  // OK, rvalue, T=int
}


When C++11 invented rvalue references, none of this behavior changed at all. const T& still binds happily to both lvalues and rvalues.

const T& is the O.G. universal reference.

C++11 also invented the forwarding reference: that when there’s a deduced type T directly modified by &&, T can sometimes be deduced as an lvalue reference type (even though this never happens anywhere else in the language).

template<class T>
void forward(T&&);

int main() {
int i = 41;
const int ci = 42;
forward(i);   // OK, lvalue, T=int&
forward(ci);  // OK, lvalue, T=const int&
forward(43);  // OK, rvalue, T=int
}


The advantage of T&& is that, by looking at whether T deduced as a reference type, you can tell whether your caller considered the argument an lvalue or an rvalue. That’s not useful information in its own right; it is useful only if you are planning to forward your argument as its original value category — lvalues as lvalues, rvalues as rvalues. That’s what std::forward<T>(t) is for.

If you see code using std::forward<T> without an originating T&&, it’s almost certainly buggy. If you see code using (deduced) T&& without std::forward<T>, it’s either buggy or it’s C++20 Ranges. (Ranges ill-advisedly uses value category to denote lifetime rather than pilferability, so Ranges code tends to forward rvalueness much more conservatively than ordinary C++ code does.)

In exchange for this advantage — forwardability — you pay in template bloat. Notice that we get three different instantiations of void forward(T&&) above, whereas we got only a single template instantiation of void observe(const T&).

Forwarding references should generally be used only where there’s an actual need for them; they shouldn’t be the first tool you reach for. Related: “Don’t blindly prefer emplace_back to push_back (2021-03-03).

And “forwarding reference” is absolutely the correct name for forwarding references.

Posted 2022-02-02