It's a pity that there are some APIs provided by others that are out of my control and the said APIs return the same type(i.e. uint8_t other than the enum type).
But the meaning is different when the same value is returned by the different APIs. I hope to use overloading to convert the returned value to readable strings.
However, as per this answer, which says:
a typedef is just another name for the same type. But you can only overload on different types.
I thought and thought, and I found a solution. But I think there must be a better one. How?
But when I finish the code snippet below. I am more confused.
Since Demo::Foo::SampleType and Demo::Bar::SampleTypeare the same thing, so the overloading should not work. But the code snippet works well! What a surprise!
Here is the demo code snippet for my solution:
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
namespace Demo
{
class Foo
{
public:
using SampleType = uint8_t;
SampleType GetFooData(){return SampleType{1};}
};
class Bar
{
public:
using SampleType = uint8_t;
SampleType GetBarData(){return SampleType{2};}
};
}
//////////////////code above is provided by others/////////////
template <typename T>
void FindAndPrint(const T& val, const std::map<T, std::string>& mp)
{
auto itr = mp.find(static_cast<T>(val));
if(itr != mp.end())
{
std::cout << itr->second;
}
else
{
std::cout << "can't classify";
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
template <typename ServiceName>
void Print(const typename ServiceName::SampleType& data);
template <>
void Print<Demo::Foo>(const typename Demo::Foo::SampleType& data)
{
enum class Color
{
Blue = 1,
Red = 2,
};
std::map<Color, std::string> mp ={
{Color::Blue, "Blue"},
{Color::Red, "Red"},
};
FindAndPrint(static_cast<Color>(data), mp);
return;
}
template <>
void Print<Demo::Bar>(const typename Demo::Foo::SampleType& data)
{
// similar code like above
// When I write this line, I start to realize my solution is wrong since `Demo::Foo::SampleType` and `Demo::Foo::SampleType`are the same thing!
// But, what a surprise! This code snippet compiles and works well. Why?
enum class Animal
{
Dog = 1,
Cat = 2,
};
std::map<Animal, std::string> mp ={
{Animal::Dog, "Dog"},
{Animal::Cat, "Cat"},
};
FindAndPrint(static_cast<Animal>(data), mp);
return;
}
int main()
{
Demo::Foo foo;
Print<Demo::Foo>(foo.GetFooData());
Demo::Bar bar;
Print<Demo::Bar>(bar.GetBarData());
}
What you have is not function overload. It is template specialization. The 3 functions you have:
template <typename ServiceName>
void Print(const typename ServiceName::SampleType& data);
template <>
void Print<Demo::Foo>(const typename Demo::Foo::SampleType& data);
template <>
void Print<Demo::Bar>(const typename Demo::Foo::SampleType& data);
It doesn't really matter how you spell out the parameter type, as long the deduced type is consistent with how you primary template was defined. Which mean you can also write them as:
template<>
void Print<Demo::Foo>(const uint8_t& data);
And the reason Print<Demo::Foo>(...) and Print<Demo::Bar>(...) are considered different functions is because you are providing different template parameters. As long Demo::Foo and Demo::Bar are not the same type, then they are considered 2 different template specialization of your base template.
You can put all the specifics about how to decode the uint8_t in a template class SampleTypeInfo that you specialize for the services. If you do that properly, the Print function can be collapsed to
template <typename ServiceName>
void Print(const typename ServiceName::SampleType& data) {
typedef SampleTypeInfo<ServiceName> Info;
FindAndPrint(Info::decode(data), Info().stringMap);
}
Here is how you can implement SampleTypeInfo:
template <typename T> struct SampleTypeInfo {};
template <typename T>
struct SampleTypeInfoBase {
typedef T SampleType;
static T decode(uint8_t x) {
return static_cast<T>(x);
}
std::map<T, std::string> stringMap;
protected:
void regString(T k, const std::string& v) {
stringMap[k] = v;
}
};
template <>
struct SampleTypeInfo<Demo::Foo> : public SampleTypeInfoBase<Color> {
SampleTypeInfo() {
regString(Color::Blue, "blue");
regString(Color::Red, "red");
}
};
template <>
struct SampleTypeInfo<Demo::Bar> : public SampleTypeInfoBase<Animal> {
SampleTypeInfo() {
regString(Animal::Cat, "cat");
regString(Animal::Dog, "dog");
}
};
Related
I have something working but it seems awfully verbose.
#include <array>
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
using DataArrayShort = std::array<unsigned char, 4>;
using DataArrayLong = std::array<unsigned char, 11>;
// Two base classes the later template stuff should choose between
class Short
{
public:
Short(const DataArrayShort & data) { /* do some init */}
};
class Long
{
public:
Long(const DataArrayLong & data) { /* do some init */}
};
// Concrete derived of the two bases
class S1 : public Short
{
public:
using Short::Short;
operator std::string() { return "S1!";}
};
class S2 : public Short
{
public:
using Short::Short;
operator std::string() { return "S2!";}
};
class L1 : public Long
{
public:
using Long::Long;
operator std::string() { return "L1!";}
};
class L2 : public Long
{
public:
using Long::Long;
operator std::string() { return "L2!";}
};
// Variables that will be modified by parsing other things before calling parse<>()
bool shortDataSet = false;
bool longDataSet = false;
DataArrayShort shortData;
DataArrayLong longData;
// Begin overly verbose template stuff
template<bool IsShort, bool IsLong>
bool getFlag();
template<>
bool getFlag<true, false>()
{
return shortDataSet;
}
template<>
bool getFlag<false, true>()
{
return longDataSet;
}
template<bool IsShort, bool IsLong>
struct RetType
{};
template<>
struct RetType<true, false>
{
typedef DataArrayShort & type;
};
template<>
struct RetType<false, true>
{
typedef DataArrayLong & type;
};
template<bool IsShort, bool IsLong>
typename RetType<IsShort, IsLong>::type getData();
template<>
DataArrayShort & getData<true, false>()
{
return shortData;
}
template<>
DataArrayLong & getData<false, true>()
{
return longData;
}
template<typename T>
inline std::string parse()
{
// First test if I can create the type with initialized data
if (getFlag<std::is_base_of<Short, T>::value, std::is_base_of<Long, T>::value>())
{
// If it's initialized, Then create it with the correct array
T t(getData<std::is_base_of<Short, T>::value, std::is_base_of<Long, T>::value>());
return t;
}
else
{
return "with uninitialized data";
}
}
// End overly verbose template stuff
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
// Something things that may or may not set shortDataSet and longDataSet and give shortData and longData values
std::cout << parse<S1>() << std::endl;
shortDataSet = true;
std::cout << parse<S1>() << std::endl;
std::cout << parse<L2>() << std::endl;
longDataSet = true;
std::cout << parse<L2>() << std::endl;
}
The syntax that's important to me is parse(). Within parse, I want to make sure I route to the correct flag and data to instantiate ConcreteType with.
I'm starting to think I can't use a function template to do what I want - I'm better off using a class template with static function members.
Using std::is_base_of seems clumsy - can I use built-in inheritance with overloads rather than is_base_of with overloads based on Short and Long?
RetType seems unnecessary but there seemed to be no other way to declare getData().
Part of the difficulty is that I need to determine the data to initialize t with before instantiating it.
I don't like the separate template bools for IsShort and IsLong - it won't scale.
What can I do to tighten this up?
You should just forward to a dispatcher that is SFINAE-enabled. Start with an inheritance tree:
template <int I> struct chooser : chooser<I-1> { };
template <> struct chooser<0> { };
Forward to it:
template <typename T>
std::string parse() { return parse_impl<T>(chooser<2>{}); }
And write your cases:
template <typename T,
typename = std::enable_if_t<std::is_base_of<Short, T>::value>
>
std::string parse_impl(chooser<2> ) { // (1)
// we're a Short!
if (shortDataSet) {
return T{shortData};
}
else {
return "with uninitialized data";
}
}
template <typename T,
typename = std::enable_if_t<std::is_base_of<Long, T>::value>
>
std::string parse_impl(chooser<1> ) { // (2)
// we're a Long!
if (longDataSet) {
return T{longData};
}
else {
return "with uninitialized data";
}
}
template <typename >
std::string parse_impl(chooser<0> ) { // (3)
// base case
return "with uninitialized data";
}
If T inherits from Short, (1) is called. Else, if it inherits from Long, (2) is called. Else, (3) is called. This is a handy way to do SFINAE on multiple potentially-overlapping criteria (since you can, after all, inherit from both Short and Long right?)
A little bit of refactoring goes a long way:
template<class T, bool IsShort = std::is_base_of<Short, T>::value,
bool IsLong = std::is_base_of<Long, T>::value>
struct data_traits { };
template<class T>
struct data_traits<T, true, false> {
static bool getFlag() { return shortDataSet; }
static DataArrayShort & getData() { return shortData; }
};
template<class T>
struct data_traits<T, false, true> {
static bool getFlag() { return longDataSet; }
static DataArrayLong & getData() { return longData; }
};
template<typename T>
inline std::string parse()
{
using traits = data_traits<T>;
// First test if I can create the type with initialized data
if (traits::getFlag())
{
// If it's initialized, Then create it with the correct array
T t(traits::getData());
return t;
}
else
{
return "with uninitialized data";
}
}
I can suggest to use traits technique, like other answer. But my solution is better in the way that it allows scability of this solution, I mean no more true, false, ... flags in your code;)
So starting from this comment:
// Variables that will be modified by parsing other things before calling parse<>()
Change your code to more scalable version.
First connect base types with data types:
template <typename BaseType>
class BaseDataTypeTraits;
template <> struct BaseDataTypeTraits<Short>
{
typedef DataArrayShort DataType;
};
template <> struct BaseDataTypeTraits<Long>
{
typedef DataArrayLong DataType;
};
Then define your base type traits:
template <typename BaseType>
struct BaseParseTypeTraits
{
static bool dataSet;
typedef typename BaseDataTypeTraits<BaseType>::DataType DataType;
static DataType data;
};
template <typename BaseType>
bool BaseParseTypeTraits<BaseType>::dataSet = false;
template <typename BaseType>
typename BaseParseTypeTraits<BaseType>::DataType BaseParseTypeTraits<BaseType>::data;
And parse traits for each specific base type:
template <typename T, typename EnableIf = void>
class ParseTypeTraits;
template <typename T>
class ParseTypeTraits<T, typename std::enable_if<std::is_base_of<Short, T>::value>::type>
: public BaseParseTypeTraits<Short>
{};
template <typename T>
class ParseTypeTraits<T, typename std::enable_if<std::is_base_of<Long, T>::value>::type>
: public BaseParseTypeTraits<Long>
{};
And your parse is then almost identical to other "traits" answer:
template<typename T>
inline std::string parse()
{
typedef ParseTypeTraits<T> TTraits;
// First test if I can create the type with initialized data
if (TTraits::dataSet)
{
// If it's initialized, Then create it with the correct array
T t(TTraits::data);
return t;
}
else
{
return "with uninitialized data";
}
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
// Something things that may or may not set shortDataSet and longDataSet and give shortData and longData values
std::cout << parse<S1>() << std::endl;
BaseParseTypeTraits<Short>::dataSet = true;
std::cout << parse<S1>() << std::endl;
std::cout << parse<L2>() << std::endl;
BaseParseTypeTraits<Long>::dataSet = true;
std::cout << parse<L2>() << std::endl;
}
Working example: ideone
[UPDATE]
In this example code I also added what is required to add new base and data type.
I mean you have this:
using DataArrayNew = std::array<unsigned char, 200>;
class New
{
public:
New(const DataArrayNew & data) { /* do some init */}
};
class N1 : public New
{
public:
using New::New;
operator std::string() { return "N1!";}
};
And to make these types be supported by your parse - you need only these two specialization:
template <> struct BaseDataTypeTraits<New>
{
typedef DataArrayNew DataType;
};
template <typename T>
class ParseTypeTraits<T, typename std::enable_if<std::is_base_of<New, T>::value>::type>
: public BaseParseTypeTraits<New>
{};
This can be enclosed in a macro:
#define DEFINE_PARSE_TRAITS_TYPE(BaseTypeParam, DataTypeParam) \
template <> struct BaseDataTypeTraits<BaseTypeParam> \
{ \
typedef DataTypeParam DataType; \
}; \
template <typename T> \
class ParseTypeTraits<T, \
typename std::enable_if< \
std::is_base_of<BaseTypeParam, T>::value>::type> \
: public BaseParseTypeTraits<BaseTypeParam> \
{}
So support for new types is as simple as this:
DEFINE_PARSE_TRAITS_TYPE(New, DataArrayNew);
The more simplification can be achieved when we can require that base type has its datatype defined within its class definition - like here:
class New
{
public:
typedef DataArrayNew DataType;
New(const DataArrayNew & data) { /* do some init */}
};
Then we can have generic BaseDataTypeTraits definition:
template <typename BaseType>
struct BaseDataTypeTraits
{
typedef typename BaseType::DataType DataType;
};
So for new type - you only require to add specialization for DataTypeTraits:
template <typename T>
class ParseTypeTraits<T, typename std::enable_if<std::is_base_of<New, T>::value>::type>
: public BaseParseTypeTraits<New>
{};
I have a boost::mpl::vector and now would need a template (function), which "iterates" over the types until the first match (at runtime) is found. Something similar to boost::fusion::find_if, but without sequence being a runtime value.
Would image it to work like this:
typedef boost::mpl::vector<Foo, Bar> Types;
template< typename T >
struct Finder {
bool operator()() const;
};
struct Callback {
template< typename T >
void operator()();
};
Callback callback;
magic_find_if<Types, Finder>(callback);
Is something like this already possible in mpl/fusion (could not find it)
I know, that all variants of Callback::operator() would be "instantiated" but this is ok. Could imagine to implement this with Variadic Templates, but sadly am stuck with C++98.
I'd suggest combining the filter and callback into a conditional operation:
template <template<typename> class Finder, typename Callback>
struct ConditionOperation {
ConditionOperation(Callback cb = {}) : _callback(std::move(cb))
{ }
template <typename T>
void operator()(boost::type<T>) const {
if (Finder<T>()())
_callback.template operator()<T>();
}
private:
Callback _callback;
};
Then, freely after the answer by Eric Niebler¹ you can write:
ConditionOperation<Finder, Callback> op;
mpl::for_each<Types, boost::type<mpl::_1> >(op);
Here's a full demo
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/type.hpp>
#include <boost/mpl/vector.hpp>
#include <boost/mpl/for_each.hpp>
#include <iostream>
struct Foo { enum { id = 879 }; };
struct Bar { enum { id = 321 }; };
struct Qux { enum { id = 555 }; };
typedef boost::mpl::vector<Foo, Bar, Qux> Types;
template <typename T>
struct Finder {
bool operator()() const { return T::id > 500; }
};
struct Callback {
template<typename T> void operator()() const {
std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << "\n";
}
};
template <template<typename> class Finder, typename Callback>
struct ConditionOperation {
ConditionOperation(Callback cb = {}) : _callback(std::move(cb))
{ }
template <typename T>
void operator()(boost::type<T>) const {
if (Finder<T>()())
_callback.template operator()<T>();
}
private:
Callback _callback;
};
int main() {
using namespace boost;
ConditionOperation<Finder, Callback> op;
mpl::for_each<Types, boost::type<mpl::_1> >(op);
}
Printing
void Callback::operator()() const [with T = Foo]
void Callback::operator()() const [with T = Qux]
¹ boost::mpl::for_each without instantiating
I have a template class where each template argument stands for one type of value the internal computation can handle. Templates (instead of function overloading) are needed because the values are passed as boost::any and their types are not clear before runtime.
To properly cast to the correct types, I would like to have a member list for each variadic argument type, something like this:
template<typename ...AcceptedTypes> // e.g. MyClass<T1, T2>
class MyClass {
std::vector<T1> m_argumentsOfType1;
std::vector<T2> m_argumentsOfType2; // ...
};
Or alternatively, I'd like to store the template argument types in a list, as to do some RTTI magic with it (?). But how to save them in a std::initializer_list member is also unclear to me.
Thanks for any help!
As you have already been hinted, the best way is to use a tuple:
template<typename ...AcceptedTypes> // e.g. MyClass<T1, T2>
class MyClass {
std::tuple<std::vector<AcceptedTypes>...> vectors;
};
This is the only way to multiply the "fields" because you cannot magically make it spell up the field names. Another important thing may be to get some named access to them. I guess that what you're trying to achieve is to have multiple vectors with unique types, so you can have the following facility to "search" for the correct vector by its value type:
template <class T1, class T2>
struct SameType
{
static const bool value = false;
};
template<class T>
struct SameType<T, T>
{
static const bool value = true;
};
template <typename... Types>
class MyClass
{
public:
typedef std::tuple<vector<Types>...> vtype;
vtype vectors;
template<int N, typename T>
struct VectorOfType: SameType<T,
typename std::tuple_element<N, vtype>::type::value_type>
{ };
template <int N, class T, class Tuple,
bool Match = false> // this =false is only for clarity
struct MatchingField
{
static vector<T>& get(Tuple& tp)
{
// The "non-matching" version
return MatchingField<N+1, T, Tuple,
VectorOfType<N+1, T>::value>::get(tp);
}
};
template <int N, class T, class Tuple>
struct MatchingField<N, T, Tuple, true>
{
static vector<T>& get(Tuple& tp)
{
return std::get<N>(tp);
}
};
template <typename T>
vector<T>& access()
{
return MatchingField<0, T, vtype,
VectorOfType<0, T>::value>::get(vectors);
}
};
Here is the testcase so you can try it out:
int main( int argc, char** argv )
{
int twelf = 12.5;
typedef reference_wrapper<int> rint;
MyClass<float, rint> mc;
vector<rint>& i = mc.access<rint>();
i.push_back(twelf);
mc.access<float>().push_back(10.5);
cout << "Test:\n";
cout << "floats: " << mc.access<float>()[0] << endl;
cout << "ints: " << mc.access<rint>()[0] << endl;
//mc.access<double>();
return 0;
}
If you use any type that is not in the list of types you passed to specialize MyClass (see this commented-out access for double), you'll get a compile error, not too readable, but gcc at least points the correct place that has caused the problem and at least such an error message suggests the correct cause of the problem - here, for example, if you tried to do mc.access<double>():
error: ‘value’ is not a member of ‘MyClass<float, int>::VectorOfType<2, double>’
An alternate solution that doesn't use tuples is to use CRTP to create a class hierarchy where each base class is a specialization for one of the types:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
template<class L, class... R> class My_class;
template<class L>
class My_class<L>
{
public:
protected:
L get()
{
return val;
}
void set(const L new_val)
{
val = new_val;
}
private:
L val;
};
template<class L, class... R>
class My_class : public My_class<L>, public My_class<R...>
{
public:
template<class T>
T Get()
{
return this->My_class<T>::get();
}
template<class T>
void Set(const T new_val)
{
this->My_class<T>::set(new_val);
}
};
int main(int, char**)
{
My_class<int, double, std::string> c;
c.Set<int>(4);
c.Set<double>(12.5);
c.Set<std::string>("Hello World");
std::cout << "int: " << c.Get<int>() << "\n";
std::cout << "double: " << c.Get<double>() << "\n";
std::cout << "string: " << c.Get<std::string>() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
One way to do such a thing, as mentioned in πάντα-ῥεῖ's comment is to use a tuple. What he didn't explain (probably to save you from yourself) is how that might look.
Here is an example:
using namespace std;
// define the abomination
template<typename...Types>
struct thing
{
thing(std::vector<Types>... args)
: _x { std::move(args)... }
{}
void print()
{
do_print_vectors(std::index_sequence_for<Types...>());
}
private:
template<std::size_t... Is>
void do_print_vectors(std::index_sequence<Is...>)
{
using swallow = int[];
(void)swallow{0, (print_one(std::get<Is>(_x)), 0)...};
}
template<class Vector>
void print_one(const Vector& v)
{
copy(begin(v), end(v), ostream_iterator<typename Vector::value_type>(cout, ","));
cout << endl;
}
private:
tuple<std::vector<Types>...> _x;
};
// test it
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(play_tuples)
{
thing<int, double, string> t {
{ 1, 2, 3, },
{ 1.1, 2.2, 3.3 },
{ "one"s, "two"s, "three"s }
};
t.print();
}
expected output:
1,2,3,
1.1,2.2,3.3,
one,two,three,
There is a proposal to allow this kind of expansion, with the intuitive syntax: P1858R1 Generalized pack declaration and usage. You can also initialize the members and access them by index. You can even support structured bindings by writing using... tuple_element = /*...*/:
template <typename... Ts>
class MyClass {
std::vector<Ts>... elems;
public:
using... tuple_element = std::vector<Ts>;
MyClass() = default;
explicit MyClass(std::vector<Ts>... args) noexcept
: elems(std::move(args))...
{
}
template <std::size_t I>
requires I < sizeof...(Ts)
auto& get() noexcept
{
return elems...[I];
}
template <std::size_t I>
requires I < sizeof...(Ts)
const auto& get() const
{
return elems...[I];
}
// ...
};
Then the class can be used like this:
using Vecs = MyClass<int, double>;
Vecs vecs{};
vecs.[0].resize(3, 42);
std::array<double, 4> arr{1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0};
vecs.[1] = {arr.[:]};
// print the elements
// note the use of vecs.[:] and Vecs::[:]
(std::copy(vecs.[:].begin(), vecs.[:].end(),
std::ostream_iterator<Vecs::[:]>{std::cout, ' '},
std::cout << '\n'), ...);
Here is a less than perfectly efficient implementation using boost::variant:
template<typename ... Ts>
using variant_vector = boost::variant< std::vector<Ts>... >;
template<typename ...Ts>
struct MyClass {
using var_vec = variant_vector<Ts...>;
std::array<var_vec, sizeof...(Ts)> vecs;
};
we create a variant-vector that can hold one of a list of types in it. You have to use boost::variant to get at the contents (which means knowing the type of the contents, or writing a visitor).
We then store an array of these variant vectors, one per type.
Now, if your class only ever holds one type of data, you can do away with the array, and just have one member of type var_vec.
I cannot see why you'd want one vector of each type. I could see wanting a vector where each element is one of any type. That would be a vector<variant<Ts...>>, as opposed to the above variant<vector<Ts>...>.
variant<Ts...> is the boost union-with-type. any is the boost smart-void*. optional is the boost there-or-not.
template<class...Ts>
boost::optional<boost::variant<Ts...>> to_variant( boost::any );
may be a useful function, that takes an any and tries to convert it to any of the Ts... types in the variant, and returns it if it succeeds (and returns an empty optional if not).
I am trying to implement a vector that can take elements of several types, and can apply a function on all of them. This is easily done with a base class, virtual functions and inheritance, but I explicity do not want to use it. Here is how far I am so far:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <tuple>
// this will be my new polymorphic vector;
template<typename... Ts>
class myvector {
std::tuple<std::vector<Ts>...> vectors;
template <template<typename> class funtype>
void for_each() {
}
template <template<typename> class funtype, typename X, typename... Xs>
void for_each() {
std::vector<X>& vector = std::get<std::vector<X>>(vectors);
for ( X& x : vector ) {
funtype<X> fun;
fun(x);
}
for_each<funtype, Xs...>();
}
public:
template <typename T>
void push_back(const T& t) {
std::vector<T>& vector = std::get<std::vector<T>>(vectors);
vector.push_back(t);
}
template <typename T>
void pop_back() {
std::vector<T>& vector = std::get<std::vector<T>>(vectors);
vector.pop_back();
}
/* here I would like to pass a function, or function object that
* can be expanded to all underlying types. I would prefer to just
* give a function name, that has an implementation to all types in Ts
*/
template <template<typename> class funtype>
void ForEach() {
for_each<funtype,Ts...>();
}
};
struct foo {
};
struct bar {
};
template <typename T>
void method(T& t);
template<>
void method(foo& b) {
std::cout << "foo" << std::endl;
}
template<>
void method(bar& b) {
std::cout << "bar" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
myvector<foo,bar> mv;
mv.push_back( foo{} );
mv.push_back( bar{} );
mv.ForEach<method>();
}
at the moment I am kind of stuck, I hope you can give me some advise on how to go further.
A common solution is to use a function object with a set of operator():
struct my_fun_type
{
void operator()(foo&) const
{ std::cout << "foo\n"; }
void operator()(bar&) const
{ std::cout << "bar\n"; }
};
This allows to pass a "set" of overloaded functions to an algorithm, state, and is rather convenient to use:
my_algorithm(my_fun_type{});
If we want to add support for such function objects, we could define ForEach as follows:
template <typename Elem, typename Fun>
void for_each(Fun&& fun) {
std::vector<Elem>& vector = std::get<std::vector<Elem>>(vectors);
for ( Elem& e : vector ) {
fun(x);
}
}
template <typename Fun>
void ForEach(Fun&& fun) {
int dummy[] = { 0, (for_each<Ts>(fun), 0)... };
(void)dummy;
}
That dummy is a trick to call for_each for all types in Ts. The (void)dummy is intended to suppress a compiler warning (dummy is never read from).
You can learn more about this technique in other Q&As, such as that one.
The Fun&& is not an rvalue reference, but a universal reference.
Note that the above example differs from many Standard Library algorithms, which take the function object by value:
template <typename Elem, typename Fun>
void for_each(Fun fun) {
std::vector<Elem>& vector = std::get<std::vector<Elem>>(vectors);
std::for_each(vector.begin(), vector.end(), std::move(fun));
}
template <typename Fun>
void ForEach(Fun fun) {
int dummy[] = { 0, (for_each<Ts>(fun), 0)... };
(void)dummy;
}
To pass a set of overloaded free functions, we can wrap them in a function object (thank #Yakk for the suggestion):
struct method_t
{
template<class... Ts>
void operator()(Ts&&... ts) const
{ method( std::forward<Ts>(ts)... ); }
};
In C++1y, such a function object type can be created with less boilerplate using a polymorphic lambda:
[](auto&&... pp)
{ method( std::forward<decltype(pp)>(pp)... ); }
I want to make a function called debug that outputs some info about objects. My system contains objects of many different types; some of them contain other objects.
using namespace std; // for brevity
struct dog {string name;};
struct human {string name; string address;};
struct line {list<human*> contents;};
struct pack {vector<dog*> contents;};
I want the function to output the member name of the argument if it has one, or debug the contents member of the argument if it has one.
I came up with the following code:
template <class T>
void debug(T object) // T here is a simple object like dog, human, etc
{
cout << object.name.c_str() << '\n';
}
// A helper function, not really important
template <class T>
void debug_pointer(T* object)
{
debug(*object);
}
void debug(pack object)
{
for_each(object.contents.begin(), object.contents.end(), debug_pointer<dog>);
}
void debug(line object)
{
for_each(object.contents.begin(), object.contents.end(), debug_pointer<human>);
}
Here, the code for pack and line is nearly identical! I would like to avoid writing the same code several times:
struct line {list<human*> contents; typedef human type;};
struct pack {vector<dog*> contents; typedef dog type;};
template <class T>
void debug(T object) // T here is a compound object (having contents)
{
for_each(object.contents.begin(), object.contents.end(), debug_pointer<T::type>);
}
But this syntax conflicts with the function template for the "simple" objects (has the same signature).
How can i rewrite my code? I don't want to rewrite the first part (declarations for dog, human, etc) because that part of my program is already very complicated, and adding stuff (base classes, member functions, etc) to it just for debugging seems out of place.
The basic code could look like this:
template <typename T> void debug(T const & x)
{
debug_helper<T, has_name<T>::value>::print(x);
}
We need a helper class:
template <typename, bool> struct debug_helper;
template <typename T> struct debug_helper<T, true>
{
static void print(T const & x) { /* print x.name */ }
};
template <typename T> struct debug_helper<T, false>
{
static void print(T const & x) { /* print x.content */ }
};
Now we just need a SFINAE trait class has_name<T>, and a mechanism to print containers. Both those problems are solved almost verbatim in the pretty printer code.
Make the container a template parameter as well:
template <template <typename> class Container, typename T>
void debug(Container<T> object)
{
for_each(object.contents.begin(), object.contents.end(), debug_pointer<T>);
}
BTW, most of the cases you may want to pass by const reference instead of by value (which requires copying the whole vector/list):
template <template <typename> class Container, typename T>
void debug(const Container<T>& object)
If C++11 can be used, you could use decltype to determine the T from the contents:
template <typename T>
void debug(const T& object)
{
typedef decltype(*object.contents.front()) T;
for_each(object.contents.begin(), object.contents.end(), debug_pointer<T>);
}
GCC also has typeof when C++11 cannot be used.
Using C++11, decltype and SFINAE make things easy :)
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <list>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
struct dog { std::string name; };
struct human { std::string name; std::string address; };
struct line { std::list<human*> contents; };
struct pack { std::vector<dog*> contents; };
template <typename T>
auto debug(T const& t) -> decltype(t.name, void(0)) {
std::cout << t.name << '\n';
}
template <typename T>
auto debug(T const* t) -> decltype(t->name, void(0)) {
if (t != 0) std::cout << t->name << '\n';
}
struct Debugger {
template <typename T>
void operator()(T const& t) { debug(t); }
};
template <typename C>
auto debug(C const& c) -> decltype(c.contents, void(0)) {
typedef decltype(c.contents) contents_type;
typedef typename contents_type::value_type type;
std::for_each(c.contents.begin(), c.contents.end(), Debugger());
}
int main() {
dog dog1 = { "dog1" }, dog2 = { "dog2" };
human h1 = { "h1" }, h2 = { "h2" };
line l; l.contents.push_back(&h1); l.contents.push_back(&h2);
debug(l);
}
In action at ideone this yields:
h1
h2
as expected :)
Without C++11, it requires some little craft but the principle remains the same, using boost::enable_if you need to create a structure that will provoke a compilation error based on the presence and accessibility of name and contents.
Of course, it would all easier if you simply hooked up the methods in the structures themselves :)
You can use SFINAE to select the overload being used.
I forget the exact details, but you can use it to detect the presence of a "contents" member or a "name" member and then overload based on that.