Why is list initialization (using curly braces) better than the alternatives?

Question

MyClass a1 {a};     // clearer and less error-prone than the other three
MyClass a2 = {a};
MyClass a3 = a;
MyClass a4(a);

Why?

Solution 1

Basically copying and pasting from Bjarne Stroustrup's "The C++ Programming Language 4th Edition":

List initialization does not allow narrowing (§iso.8.5.4). That is:

• An integer cannot be converted to another integer that cannot hold its value. For example, char to int is allowed, but not int to char.
• A floating-point value cannot be converted to another floating-point type that cannot hold its value. For example, float to double is allowed, but not double to float.
• A floating-point value cannot be converted to an integer type.
• An integer value cannot be converted to a floating-point type.

Example:

void fun(double val, int val2) {

    int x2 = val;    // if val == 7.9, x2 becomes 7 (bad)

    char c2 = val2;  // if val2 == 1025, c2 becomes 1 (bad)

    int x3 {val};    // error: possible truncation (good)

    char c3 {val2};  // error: possible narrowing (good)

    char c4 {24};    // OK: 24 can be represented exactly as a char (good)

    char c5 {264};   // error (assuming 8-bit chars): 264 cannot be 
                     // represented as a char (good)

    int x4 {2.0};    // error: no double to int value conversion (good)

}

---

The only situation where = is preferred over {} is when using auto keyword to get the type determined by the initializer.

Example:

auto z1 {99};   // z1 is an int
auto z2 = {99}; // z2 is std::initializer_list<int>
auto z3 = 99;   // z3 is an int

---

Conclusion

Prefer {} initialization over alternatives unless you have a strong reason not to.

Solution 2

There are already great answers about the advantages of using list initialization, however my personal rule of thumb is NOT to use curly braces whenever possible, but instead make it dependent on the conceptual meaning:

• If the object I'm creating conceptually holds the values I'm passing in the constructor (e.g. containers, POD structs, atomics, smart pointers etc.), then I'm using the braces.
• If the constructor resembles a normal function call (it performs some more or less complex operations that are parametrized by the arguments) then I'm using the normal function call syntax.
• For default initialization I always use curly braces.
  For one, that way I'm always sure that the object gets initialized irrespective of whether it e.g. is a "real" class with a default constructor that would get called anyway or a builtin / POD type. Second it is - in most cases - consistent with the first rule, as a default initialized object often represents an "empty" object.

In my experience, this ruleset can be applied much more consistently than using curly braces by default, but having to explicitly remember all the exceptions when they can't be used or have a different meaning than the "normal" function-call syntax with parenthesis (calls a different overload).

It e.g. fits nicely with standard library-types like std::vector:

vector<int> a{10,20};   //Curly braces -> fills the vector with the arguments

vector<int> b(10,20);   //Parentheses -> uses arguments to parametrize some functionality,                          
vector<int> c(it1,it2); //like filling the vector with 10 integers or copying a range.

vector<int> d{};      //empty braces -> default constructs vector, which is equivalent
                      //to a vector that is filled with zero elements

Solution 3

There are MANY reasons to use brace initialization, but you should be aware that the initializer_list<> constructor is preferred to the other constructors, the exception being the default-constructor. This leads to problems with constructors and templates where the type T constructor can be either an initializer list or a plain old ctor.

struct Foo {
    Foo() {}

    Foo(std::initializer_list<Foo>) {
        std::cout << "initializer list" << std::endl;
    }

    Foo(const Foo&) {
        std::cout << "copy ctor" << std::endl;
    }
};

int main() {
    Foo a;
    Foo b(a); // copy ctor
    Foo c{a}; // copy ctor (init. list element) + initializer list!!!
}

Assuming you don't encounter such classes there is little reason not to use the intializer list.

Solution 4

It only safer as long as you don't build with -Wno-narrowing like say Google does in Chromium. If you do, then it is LESS safe. Without that flag the only unsafe cases will be fixed by C++20 though.

Note: A) Curly brackets are safer because they don't allow narrowing. B) Curly brackers are less safe because they can bypass private or deleted constructors, and call explicit marked constructors implicitly.

Those two combined means they are safer if what is inside is primitive constants, but less safe if they are objects (though fixed in C++20)

Solution 5

Update (2022-02-11): Note that there are more recent opinions on that subject to the one originally posted (below), which argue against the preference of the {} initializer, such as Arthur Dwyer in his blog post on The Knightmare of Initialization in C++.

Original Answer:

Read Herb Sutter's (updated) GotW #1. This explains in detail the difference between these, and a few more options, along with several gotchas that are relevant for distinguishing the behavior of the different options.

The gist/copied from section 4:

When should you use ( ) vs. { } syntax to initialize objects? Why? Here’s the simple guideline:

Guideline: Prefer to use initialization with { }, such as vector v = { 1, 2, 3, 4 }; or auto v = vector{ 1, 2, 3, 4 };, because it’s more consistent, more correct, and avoids having to know about old-style pitfalls at all. In single-argument cases where you prefer to see only the = sign, such as int i = 42; and auto x = anything; omitting the braces is fine. …

That covers the vast majority of cases. There is only one main exception:

… In rare cases, such as vector v(10,20); or auto v = vector(10,20);, use initialization with ( ) to explicitly call a constructor that is otherwise hidden by an initializer_list constructor.

However, the reason this should be generally “rare” is because default and copy construction are already special and work fine with { }, and good class design now mostly avoids the resort-to-( ) case for user-defined constructors because of this final design guideline:

Guideline: When you design a class, avoid providing a constructor that ambiguously overloads with an initializer_list constructor, so that users won’t need to use ( ) to reach such a hidden constructor.

Also see the Core Guidelines on that subject: ES.23: Prefer the {}-initializer syntax.

View more solutions