Why is my C++/CX ref class forbidden from having public methods that are templates or mention, say, std::vector?

Raymond Chen

A customer had a class implement in C++/CX¹ and they tried to add a public method:

ref class MyClass
  // 1
  std::vector<int> GetValues();

  // 2
  void SetValues(std::vector<int> values);

  // 3
  template<typename T> T GetValue();

But this generated errors:

// 1
error C3986: 'SetValue': signature of public member contains native type 'std::vector<int,std::allocator<_Ty>>'

// 2
error C3986: 'GetValues': signature of public member contains native type 'std::vector<int,std::allocator<_Ty>>'

// 3
error C2900: 'T MyClass::GetValue(void)': member function templates in WinRT classes must be 'private', 'internal' or 'protected private'

That last error message is the big clue.

The C++/CX nonstandard language extension introduces the ref keyword which is used to mark a class as participating in the Windows Runtime. These classes are automatically reference-counted, and you access instances of them as if they were pointers, but using ^ instead of *.

One of the things that happens when you use this extension is that there are new member access control keywords, and existing keywords change their meanings. C++/CX uses these member access control keywords to control member access both for C++ code inside the same module, as well for the Windows Runtime metadata that allows the classes to be used from other languages that support the Windows Runtime, like C# and JavaScript.

Keyword In metadata In C++
public public public
public protected
protected public
protected public
protected protected protected
private public
public private
(none) public
private protected
protected private
(none) protected
private (none) private

The access control keyword public private is deprecated, and since it is part of the already-deprecated C++/CX extension, that makes it double-deprecated.

If you use an access control keyword that puts the member into Windows Runtime metadata, then that member must conform to Windows Runtime rules. One of those rules is that the types used in the method signature must be expressible in the Windows Runtime. This means that you can use public enum class, value struct, or ref class, as well as a handful of primitive types like integers, floating point values, and Platform::String^.

The std::vector is not one of the allowed types in the Windows Runtime. After all, how would C# or JavaScript access a std::vector? That thing is C++-only and has no cross-language ABI. Indeed, it doesn’t even have a consistent ABI within the C++ language: different compilers, different versions of the same compiler, or even different compiler options within the same version of the same compiler, can have different ABI interfaces to std::vector.

If you intend your Windows Runtime member to be accessible outside your module, then you need to express the member in terms that can be represented in the Windows Runtime.

On the other hand, if you just want the member to be accessible to other part of your module, you can switch to one of the member access keywords that excludes the member from Windows Runtime metadata. That frees you from the restriction of having to conform to Windows Runtime rules.

¹ The nonstandard C++/CX extension is no longer the recommended mechanism for using the Windows Runtime from C++. For one thing, the C++/CX extension is supported only in C++14 and C++17 modes. You won’t be able to use it with C++20 or later, so your C++/CX code won’t be able to take advantage of any new language features like concepts. (You can get coroutine support by adding the /await switch.) I encourage you to stop using C++/CX and switch to C++/WinRT.


Discussion is closed. Login to edit/delete existing comments.

  • Paulo Pinto 0

    > The nonstandard C++/CX extension is no longer the recommended mechanism for using the Windows Runtime from C++. …

    It might not be recommended, but forcing us to use C++/WinRT with tooling that resembles using ATL 3.0 alongside Visual C++ 6.0 from around 1998 isn’t any better.

    Maybe Microsoft employees enjoy editing IDL files without any tooling support from from Visual Studio, and feel pleasure in manually merging generated C++ code into their projects after each IDL change, the rest of us rather migrates to Qt and VCL instead.

  • Mystery Man 0

    One mustn’t put the getter and setter in the public scope anyway. They are part of the internal working of the class.

  • Gunnar Dalsnes 0

    Not directly related, but can c++/winrt use .net dlls? And can .net use c++/winrt dlls? I never really understood what this winrt thing is.

    • Gunnar Dalsnes 0

      I think my thought is, can you write winrt stuff in .net, compile to native, allow these dlls to be used from c++/winrt and over time phase out use of++ completely:-) c++ just seems too complicated to survive.

      • Paulo Pinto 0

        You are mixing stuff, that would be C++/CLI, which targets MSIL as “native” code.

        Basically WinRT is what Microsoft thought of, when originally designing .NET and going with a bytecode VM instead.

        So, WinRT is COM, nothing else. Although there is a twist, you get a new base interface IInspectable, type libraries use .NET metadata instead of TLB files, and the COM ABI was updated to support more types across languages.

        Basically since Vista, the Windows team has been pushing COM APIs in detriment of .NET, thus rebooting their COM+ Runtime (Ext-VOS) ideas as WinRT.

        • Gunnar Dalsnes 0

          Ok thanks. So I guess WinRT is windows OS apis accessible via (imaginary named) COM++.
          So what if someone non Microsoft/non Windows OS expose apis via COM++, what to name this then, since COM++ does not exist as a name, only WinRT…

Feedback usabilla icon