Why would one want to put a unary plus (+) operator in front of a C++ lambda? [duplicate]

Question

I found out that in C++ we can use + in lambda function +[]{} Example from the article:

#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
int main()
{
    auto funcPtr = +[] {};
    static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(funcPtr), void (*)()>::value);
}

The main idea of + sign in lambda

You can force the compiler to generate lambda as a function pointer rather than closure by adding + in front of it as above.

But what are advantages of using '+' in lambda? Could you please provide example or link me to the explanation?

Answer 1

It's not a feature of lambda and more is a feature of implicit type conversion.

What happens there is stemming from the fact that a captureless lambda can be implicitly converted to a pointer to function with same signature as lambda's operator(). +[]{} is an expression where unary + is a no-op , so the only legal result of expression is a pointer to function.

In result auto funcPtr would be a pointer to a function, not an instance of an object with anonymous type returned by lambda expression. Not much of advantage in provided code, but it can be important in type-agnostic code, e.g. where some kind of decltype expression is used. E.g.

#include <type_traits>

void foo(int);

template<class T>
struct is_foo : std::is_same<T, decltype(&foo)> {};

int main()
{
    auto foo1 = +[](int)->void {};
    auto foo2 = [](int)->void {};
    static_assert(is_foo<decltype(foo1)>::value, "foo1 is not like foo");
    static_assert(is_foo<decltype(+foo2)>::value, "+foo2 is not like foo");
    static_assert(is_foo<decltype(foo2)>::value, "foo2 is not like foo"); 
}  

Note that you can do same with foo: std::is_same<T, decltype(+foo)> {};

Albeit some platforms may not support that, because they inherently may have a variety of function pointers with different calling convention and the expression will be ambiguous.