C++/WinRT implementation inheritance: Notes on winrt::implements, part 3

Discovering the legal inheritance structures for winrt::implements. The post C++/WinRT implementation inheritance: Notes on winrt::implements, part 3 appeared first on The Old New Thing.

Feb 25, 2025 - 19:56

C++/WinRT implementation inheritance: Notes on winrt::implements, part 3

In C++/WinRT, the implements template type starts like this:

template 
struct implements :
    impl::producers,
    impl::base_implements::type
{

The producers template type generates the vtables for the COM interfaces. But that’s not what we’re looking at today. Today we’re going to look at the base_implements part.

The base_implements type is defined as follows:

template , typename... I>
struct base_implements_impl
    : impl::identity> {};

template 
struct base_implements_impl::type>, I...>
    : nested_implements {};

template 
using base_implements = base_implements_impl;

We learned from last time that this uses SFINAE: to implement an “if then else” pattern. In this case, it’s saying “If nested_implements::type exists, then derive from nested_implements. Otherwise, derive from impl::identity<root_implements>.”

template 
struct identity
{
    using type = T;
};

Okay, so identity::type is just T. This is basically a copy of std::type_identity. C++/WinRT supports C++17, but std::type_identity didn’t show up until C++20, so C++/WinRT provides its own copy.

Applying this to base_implements_impl simplifies it to “If nested_implements::type exists, then derive from nested_implements. Otherwise, derive from root_implements.”

So what is nested_implements?

template 
struct nested_implements
{};

template 
struct nested_implements
    : std::conditional_t,
    impl::identity, nested_implements>
{
    static_assert(
        !is_implements_v ||
        !std::disjunction_v...>,
        "Duplicate nested implements found");
};

This is a recursively-defined nested_implements. In the base case, nested_implements<> is an empty class. Otherwise, we peel off the first template parameter and see if it derives from implements. If so, then we use it. Otherwise, we recurse on the remaining parameters.

So nested_implements searches through the template parameters and takes the first one that derives from implements. Otherwise, it’s an empty class.

But wait, there’s extra work done in the static_assert. First, let’s translate it from C++ template-ese to pseudo-code. The std::disjunction takes the logical OR of its arguments, so the second part expands to !(is_implements_v || is_implements_v || ...), which says “None of the Rest is an implements.”

Now combine this with the first part, and we get “Either First is not an implements, or none of the Rest is an implements.” If you transform this to an implication relation, you get “If First is an implements, then none of the Rest is an implements.”

During the recursion, First progresses through all of the interface arguments, so the assertion verifies that at most one of the interface arguments supports implements.

Okay, so unwinding back to base_implements, we had previously determined that the definition was “If nested_implements::type exists, then derive from nested_implements. Otherwise, derive from impl::identity<root_implements>.” Combining this with our discovery that nested_implements takes the first interface that is an implements, we see that the result is that base_implements is

If none of the interfaces is an implements, then use root_implements.
If exactly one of the interfaces is an implements, then use it. (It will provide the root_implements so we don’t have to.)
If more than one of the interfaces is an implements, then raise a compile-time error.

From all this, you can figure out the legal inheritance structures for winrt::implements: The implements must form a single chain of inheritance, possibly passing through other non-implements classes along the way. You cannot inherit (directly or indirectly) from multiple implements. The innermost implements provides the root_implements.

	A		`A : implements, X1`
	↓
	`implements`	X1
	↓
`produce`	B	`produce`	`B : implements`
	↓
	`implements`
	↓
	C	`produce`	`C : D, X2`
	↓
	D	X2	`D : implements`
	↓
`root_implements`	`produce`	`produce`

Next time, we’ll look at how you can employ base classes and inheritance in your Windows Runtime implementation classes while still adhering to these restrictions.

The post C++/WinRT implementation inheritance: Notes on winrt::implements, part 3 appeared first on The Old New Thing.