Most vexing parse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most vexing parse is a counterintuitive form of syntactic ambiguity resolution in the C++ programming language. In certain situations, the C++ grammar cannot distinguish between the creation of an object parameter and specification of a function's type. In those situations, the compiler is required to interpret the line as a function type specification.


The term "most vexing parse" was first used by Scott Meyers in his 2001 book Effective STL.[1] While unusual in C, the phenomenon was quite common in C++ until the introduction of uniform initialization in C++11.[2]


C-style casts[edit]

A simple example appears when a functional cast is intended to convert an expression for initializing a variable:

void f(double my_dbl) {
  int i(int(my_dbl));

Line 2 above is ambiguous. One possible interpretation is to declare a variable i with initial value produced by converting my_dbl to an int. However, C allows superfluous parentheses around function parameter declarations; in this case, the declaration of i is instead a function declaration equivalent to the following:

// A function named i takes an integer and returns an integer.
int i(int my_dbl);

Unnamed temporary[edit]

A more elaborate example is:

struct Timer {};

struct TimeKeeper {
  explicit TimeKeeper(Timer t);
  int get_time();

int main() {
  TimeKeeper time_keeper(Timer());
  return time_keeper.get_time();

The line

  TimeKeeper time_keeper(Timer());

is ambiguous, since it could be interpreted either as

  1. a variable definition for variable time_keeper of class TimeKeeper, initialized with an anonymous instance of class Timer or
  2. a function declaration for a function time_keeper that returns an object of type TimeKeeper and has a single (unnamed) parameter, whose type is a (pointer to a) function[Note 1] taking no input and returning Timer objects.

The C++ standard requires the second interpretation, which is inconsistent with line 9 above. For example, Clang++ warns that the most vexing parse has been applied on line 9 and errors on the following line:[3]

$ clang++ warning: parentheses were disambiguated as a function declaration
  TimeKeeper time_keeper(Timer());
                        ^~~~~~~~~ note: add a pair of parentheses to declare a variable
  TimeKeeper time_keeper(Timer());
                         (      ) error: member reference base type 'TimeKeeper (Timer (*)())' is not a
      structure or union
  return time_keeper.get_time();


The required interpretation of these ambiguous declarations is rarely the intended one.[4][5] Function types in C++ are usually hidden behind typedefs and typically have an explicit reference or pointer qualifier. To force the alternate interpretation, the typical technique is a different object creation or conversion syntax.

In the type conversion example, there are two alternate syntaxes available for casts: the "C-style cast"

// declares a variable of type int
int i((int)my_dbl);

or a named cast:

int i(static_cast<int>(my_dbl));

In the variable declaration example, the preferred method (since C++11) is uniform (brace) initialization.[6] This also allows limited omission of the type name entirely:

//Any of the following work:
TimeKeeper time_keeper(Timer{});
TimeKeeper time_keeper{Timer()};
TimeKeeper time_keeper{Timer{}};
TimeKeeper time_keeper(     {});
TimeKeeper time_keeper{     {}};

Prior to C++11, the common techniques to force the intended interpretation were use of an extra parenthesis or copy-initialization:[5]

TimeKeeper time_keeper( /*Avoid MVP*/ (Timer()) );
TimeKeeper time_keeper = TimeKeeper(Timer());

In the latter syntax, the copy-initialization is likely to be optimized out by the compiler.[7] Since C++17, this optimization is guaranteed.[8]


  1. ^ According to C++ type decay rules, a function object declared as a parameter is equivalent to a pointer to a function of that type. See Function object#In C and C++.


  1. ^ Meyers, Scott (2001). Effective STL: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your Use of the Standard Template Library. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-74962-9.
  2. ^ Coffin, Jerry (29 December 2012). "c++ - What is the purpose of the Most Vexing Parse?". Stack Overflow. Archived from the original on 17 January 2021. Retrieved 2021-01-17.
  3. ^ Lattner, Chris (5 April 2010). "Amazing Feats of Clang Error Recovery". LLVM Project Blog. The Most Vexing Parse. Archived from the original on 26 September 2020. Retrieved 2021-01-17.
  4. ^ DrPizza; Prototyped; wb; euzeka; Simpson, Homer J (October 2002). "C++'s "most vexing parse"". ArsTechnica OpenForum. Archived from the original on 20 May 2015. Retrieved 2021-01-17.
  5. ^ a b Boccara, Jonathan (2018-01-30). "The Most Vexing Parse: How to Spot It and Fix It Quickly". Fluent C++. Retrieved 2021-01-17.
  6. ^ Stroustrup, Bjarne (19 August 2016). "C++11 FAQ". Uniform initialization syntax and semantics. Retrieved 2021-01-17.
  7. ^ "Myths and urban legends about C++". C++ FAQ. What is copy elision? What is RVO?. Archived from the original on 17 January 2021. Retrieved 2021-01-17.
  8. ^ Devlieghere, Jonas (2016-11-21). "Guaranteed Copy Elision". Jonas Devlieghere. Retrieved 2021-01-17. Note, however, the caveats covered in Brand, C++ (2018-12-11). "Guaranteed Copy Elision Does Not Elide Copies". Microsoft C++ Team Blog. Retrieved 2021-01-17.

External links[edit]