I have a templated class, for which I want to specialize one of the methods for integral types. I see a lot of examples to do this for templated functions using enable_if trait, but I just can't seem to get the right syntax for doing this on a class method.
What am I doing wrong?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template<typename T>
class Base {
public:
virtual ~Base() {};
void f() {
cout << "base\n";
};
};
template<typename Q>
void Base<std::enable_if<std::is_integral<Q>::value>::type>::f() {
cout << "integral\n";
}
template<typename Q>
void Base<!std::enable_if<!std::is_integral<Q>::value>::type>::f() {
cout << "non-integral\n";
}
int main()
{
Base<int> i;
i.f();
Base<std::string> s;
s.f();
return 0;
}
the above code does not compile:
main.cpp:16:60: error: type/value mismatch at argument 1 in template parameter list for ‘template class Base’
16 | void Base<std::enable_if<!std::is_integral<Q>::value>::type>::f() {
| ^
main.cpp:16:60: note: expected a type, got ‘std::enable_if<(! std::is_integral<_Tp>::value)>::type’
main.cpp:21:61: error: type/value mismatch at argument 1 in template parameter list for ‘template class Base’
21 | void Base<!std::enable_if<!std::is_integral<Q>::value>::type>::f() {
| ^
main.cpp:21:61: note: expected a type, got ‘! std::enable_if<(! std::is_integral<_Tp>::value)>::type’
main.cpp:21:6: error: redefinition of ‘template void f()’
21 | void Base<!std::enable_if<!std::is_integral<Q>::value>::type>::f() {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
main.cpp:16:6: note: ‘template void f()’ previously declared here
16 | void Base<std::enable_if<!std::is_integral<Q>::value>::type>::f() {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another alternative is if constexpr (C++17):
template<typename T>
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() = default;
void f() {
if constexpr(std::is_integral<T>::value) {
std::cout << "integral\n";
} else {
std::cout << "non-integral\n";
}
}
};
Some fixes are required to your code.
First, this isn't partial specialization. If it was specialization then you could only specialize the whole class template not just one method of it.
You placed the ! in the wrong place. std::enable_if<....>::type is a type, !std::enable_if<....>::type does not make sense. You want to enable one function when std::is_integral<T>::value and the other if !std::is_integral<T>::value.
You can write two overloads like this:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template<typename T>
class Base {
public:
virtual ~Base() {};
template<typename Q = T>
std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral<Q>::value> f() {
cout << "integral\n";
}
template<typename Q = T>
std::enable_if_t<!std::is_integral<Q>::value> f() {
cout << "non-integral\n";
}
};
int main()
{
Base<int> i;
i.f();
Base<std::string> s;
s.f();
return 0;
}
The SFINAE is on the return type. Q is just to have a template argument (required for SFINAE). Either std::is_integral<T>::value is true or not and only one of the two overloads is not a substitution failure. When it is not a substitution failure then std::enable_if_t< ...> is void.
SFINAE won't help you here, since f is not a template function.
You could use concepts for this though. C++20 needed for using this feature:
#include <iostream>
#include <concepts>
template<typename T>
class Base {
public:
~Base() {};
void f() requires std::integral<T>
{
std::cout << "integral\n";
}
void f() requires !std::integral<T>
{
std::cout << "non-integral\n";
}
};
These are overloads, not specializations. You need to have the two overloads in the class declaration as well, otherwise you can't write these two declarations. At that point, it's likely better to have the body of the functions inside the class declaration; SFINAE guarantees that only one of them will be active.
Related
I need to specialize template member function for some type (let's say double). It works fine while class X itself is not a template class, but when I make it template GCC starts giving compile-time errors.
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
template <class C> class X
{
public:
template <class T> void get_as();
};
template <class C>
void X<C>::get_as<double>()
{
}
int main()
{
X<int> x;
x.get_as();
}
here is the error message
source.cpp:11:27: error: template-id
'get_as<double>' in declaration of primary template
source.cpp:11:6: error: prototype for
'void X<C>::get_as()' does not match any in class 'X<C>'
source.cpp:7:35: error: candidate is:
template<class C> template<class T> void X::get_as()
What is the problem here, and how can I fix it?
It doesn't work that way. You would need to say the following, but it is not correct
template <class C> template<>
void X<C>::get_as<double>()
{
}
Explicitly specialized members need their surrounding class templates to be explicitly specialized as well. So you need to say the following, which would only specialize the member for X<int>.
template <> template<>
void X<int>::get_as<double>()
{
}
If you want to keep the surrounding template unspecialized, you have several choices. I prefer overloads
template <class C> class X
{
template<typename T> struct type { };
public:
template <class T> void get_as() {
get_as(type<T>());
}
private:
template<typename T> void get_as(type<T>) {
}
void get_as(type<double>) {
}
};
If one is able to used std::enable_if we could rely on SFINAE (substitution failure is not an error)
that would work like so (see LIVE):
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename C> class X
{
public:
template <typename T,
std::enable_if_t<!std::is_same_v<double,T>, int> = 0>
void get_as() { std::cout << "get as T" << std::endl; }
template <typename T,
std::enable_if_t<std::is_same_v<double,T>, int> = 0>
void get_as() { std::cout << "get as double" << std::endl; }
};
int main() {
X<int> d;
d.get_as<double>();
return 0;
}
The ugly thing is that, with all these enable_if's only one specialization needs to be available for the compiler otherwise disambiguation error will arise. Thats why the default behaviour "get as T" needs also an enable if.
Probably the cleanest way to do this in C++17 and on-wards is to use a if constexpr in combination with the std::is_same_v type trait without explicitly specialisation at all:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename C>
class X {
public:
template <typename T>
void get_as() {
// Implementation part for all types
std::cout << "get as ";
// Implementation part for each type separately
if constexpr (std::is_same_v<double, T>) {
std::cout << "'double'";
} else if constexpr (std::is_same_v<int, T>) {
std::cout << "'int'";
} else {
std::cout << "(default)";
}
// Implementation part for all types
std::cout << std::endl;
return;
}
};
int main() {
X<int> d {};
d.get_as<double>(); // 'double'
d.get_as<int>(); // 'int'
d.get_as<float>(); // (default)
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Try it here!
If you need to have a return type as well you could declare the return type as auto:
template <typename T>
auto get_as() {
if constexpr (std::is_same_v<double, T>) {
return 0.5;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
Is it possible to create a class template with a member function definition only if the object created is of a specific type?
I've created a template class I will use for storing either int or doubles, but for doubles I would like to be able to set precision too (objects created with myclass < double> should have this functionality, but for myclass< int> there is no need for that to be present at all).
I know I can use a base class template, and create new classes "myInt", "myDouble" using that and implement the functionality only in the myDouble class, but I think it would be cleaner to define the functionality (both the function and a member variable) for doubles in the class template, if that's possible and preferable?
Let's add an example to show what I want to do:
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
class commonBase{
public:
void setState(int state);
virtual void print() = 0;
private:
int _my_state;
};
template <typename T>
class generalObject : public commonBase {
public:
void value(T value);
void print(){ std::cout << "My value: " << _my_value << std::endl; }
private:
T _my_value;
};
template <typename T>
void generalObject<T>::value(T value){
_my_value = value;
}
// Is there any way do specialize only only whats different from the generalObject template?
// Here I thought I could specialize the case where a generalObject is created of <double>, but
// when I do, nothing is derived from generalObject (or at least not visible as far as I can tell)
template<>
class generalObject<double>{
public:
void setPrecision(int precision){ _my_precision = precision; }
// here I would like a special implementation of print(), which overrides the print() in generalObject
// and instead also prints according to the precision set when the object is of <double> type.
// Row below an example which doesn't work (compiler error, _my_value undefined)
void print(){ std::cout << "My value: " << std::setprecision(_my_precision) << _my_value << std::endl; }
private:
int _my_precision;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
generalObject<int> o1;
o1.value(1);
o1.print();
o1.setState(1); //inherited from the commonBase
generalObject<double> o2;
o2.setPrecision(2);
o2.value(2); //here value isn't available (compile error)
o2.print();
o2.setState(123); //also isn't available (compile error)
}
Sure.
template <typename T> class Poly;
void set_precision(Poly<double>* self, int a) {};
If you really want dot notation you can then add:
template <typename T> class Poly {
public: void set_precision(int a){::set_precision(this,a);}
...
However I think you should think about what you're trying to accomplish. If MyInt and MyDouble have different fields and different methods and different implementations, they should probably be different classes.
This can be solved using template specialization.
We first define a common template...
template< typename T >
struct myclass
{
// common stuff
};
... and specialize that for double:
template<>
struct myclass<double>
{
int precision = 10;
void setprecision( int p ){ precision = p; }
};
Now the setprecision() method can only be called for myclass<double>. The compiler will complain if we try to call it for anything else, like myclass<int>.
int main()
{
myclass<double> d;
d.setprecision( 42 ); // compiles
myclass<int> i;
i.setprecision( 42 ); // fails to compile, as expected
}
Demo.
The basic way to have a member function of a class template exist only for some template parameters is to create a specialization of the class template for those template parameters.
template<typename T>class X{
// general definition
};
template<>class X<double>{
// double-specific definition
};
The downside of this is that the specialization will need to duplicate anything that is common. One way to address this is to move the common things out to a base class template:
template<typename T>class Xcommon{
// common stuff
};
template<typename T>class X: public Xcommon<T>{
// general definition
};
template<>class X<double>: public Xcommon<double>{
// double-specific definition
};
Alternatively, you can do it the other way: put the common stuff in the derived class, and the extras in the base, and specialize the base:
template<typename T>class Xextras{
// empty by default
};
template<typename T>class X: public Xextras<T>{
// common definition
};
template<>class Xextras<double>{
// double-specific definition
};
Either way can work; which is better depends on the details.
Both these methods work for data members and member functions.
Alternatively, you can use enable_if to mean that member functions are not selected by overload resolution if the template parameter doesn't meet a required condition. This requires that the member function is itself a template.
template<typename T>class X{
template<typename U=T> // make it a template,
std::enable_if<std::is_same_v<U,double>> double_specific_function(){
// do stuff
}
};
I wouldn't recommend this option unless there is no other choice.
If the question is about a member function, then here is one of the ways to do it without class template specialization:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename T>
struct Type {
template <typename U = T,
typename = typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, double>::value>::type>
void only_for_double() {
std::cout << "a doubling" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
Type<int> n;
Type<double> d;
// n.only_for_double(); // does not compile.
d.only_for_double();
}
Example on ideone.com
If you require a data-member presence based on the template parameter, you will have to do some kind of specialization, in which case it is, probably, simpler to put the function into corresponding specialization.
EDIT: After OP made his question more specific
Here is one way to do it without extra class and getting rid of virtual functions. Hope it helps.
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
template <typename T, typename Derived = void>
class commonBase {
public:
void setState(int state) {
_my_state = state;
}
void value(T value) {
_my_value = value;
}
template <typename U = Derived,
typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, void>::value,
void * >::type = nullptr>
void print() const {
std::cout << "My value: " << _my_value << std::endl;
}
template <typename U = Derived,
typename std::enable_if<!std::is_same<U, void>::value,
void * >::type = nullptr>
void print() const {
static_cast<Derived const *>(this)->_print();
}
protected:
T _my_value;
int _my_state;
};
template <typename T>
class generalObject : public commonBase<T> {
};
template<>
class generalObject<double> : public commonBase<double, generalObject<double>> {
private:
friend commonBase<double, generalObject<double>>;
void _print() const {
std::cout << "My value: " << std::setprecision(_my_precision) <<
_my_value << std::endl;
}
public:
void setPrecision(int precision){ _my_precision = precision; }
private:
int _my_precision;
};
int main(){
generalObject<int> o1;
o1.value(1);
o1.print();
o1.setState(1);
generalObject<double> o2;
o2.setPrecision(2);
o2.value(1.234);
o2.print();
o2.setState(123);
}
Same code on ideone.com
I'm new to c++ and Im learning to use templates .
I want to make a template class with 2 template parameters,and to specialize a single member function from the class, for the case where the second template parameter is a vector templated on a pointer type of the first parameter. I think an example of what I tried will be more clear :
//Container.h:
template<class T , class CONT >
class Container {
private:
CONT container;
T someData;
public:
void foo();
};
and the specilization for std::vector I tried is:
//Container.cpp
template<class T>
void Container<T, std::vector<T*> > ::foo(){
cout << "specialized foo: " << container.pop_back();
}
template<class T, class CONT >
void Container<T, CONT > ::foo(){
cout << "regular foo: " << container.pop_back());
}
but I get these erors:
error C3860: template argument list following class template name must list parameters in the order used in template parameter list
error C2976: 'Container<T,CONT>' : too few template argument
the usage of the Container class has to be that the 1st parameter is some type , and second is an STL container, vector or list. for example :
Container<int, vector<int*> > c;
c.foo();
what am I dong wrong ?
Correct syntax to define a member function in Class template is
template<class T, class CONT >
void Container<T, CONT>::foo()
{
cout << "specialized foo:" ;
}
foo() function is not overloaded and redefined. Redefinition of foo() function also gives error. You can't overload function on the basis of return type.
The specialization of std::vector is incorrect.
<< operator should also be overloaded You can'y use it directly like this
cout << container.pop_back();
You could use policy based design. Now there are many variations on this, but a simple example goes like so
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
template<typename T, class CONT>
struct foo_policy {
static inline void execute() {
cout << "regular foo: \n" ;
}
};
template<typename T>
struct foo_policy<T, std::vector<T*>> {
static inline void execute() {
cout << "specialized foo: \n" ;
}
};
template<class T , class CONT >
class Container
{
private:
CONT container;
T someData;
public:
void foo()
{
foo_policy<T, CONT>::execute();
}
};
int main()
{
Container<int, std::vector<int>> a;
Container<int, std::vector<int*>> b;
a.foo();
b.foo();
return 0;
}
Here's a demo. In another scenario you could be deriving Container from the foo_policy class and using the base member's function (but there a bit more complex implications there)
I need to specialize template member function for some type (let's say double). It works fine while class X itself is not a template class, but when I make it template GCC starts giving compile-time errors.
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
template <class C> class X
{
public:
template <class T> void get_as();
};
template <class C>
void X<C>::get_as<double>()
{
}
int main()
{
X<int> x;
x.get_as();
}
here is the error message
source.cpp:11:27: error: template-id
'get_as<double>' in declaration of primary template
source.cpp:11:6: error: prototype for
'void X<C>::get_as()' does not match any in class 'X<C>'
source.cpp:7:35: error: candidate is:
template<class C> template<class T> void X::get_as()
What is the problem here, and how can I fix it?
It doesn't work that way. You would need to say the following, but it is not correct
template <class C> template<>
void X<C>::get_as<double>()
{
}
Explicitly specialized members need their surrounding class templates to be explicitly specialized as well. So you need to say the following, which would only specialize the member for X<int>.
template <> template<>
void X<int>::get_as<double>()
{
}
If you want to keep the surrounding template unspecialized, you have several choices. I prefer overloads
template <class C> class X
{
template<typename T> struct type { };
public:
template <class T> void get_as() {
get_as(type<T>());
}
private:
template<typename T> void get_as(type<T>) {
}
void get_as(type<double>) {
}
};
If one is able to used std::enable_if we could rely on SFINAE (substitution failure is not an error)
that would work like so (see LIVE):
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename C> class X
{
public:
template <typename T,
std::enable_if_t<!std::is_same_v<double,T>, int> = 0>
void get_as() { std::cout << "get as T" << std::endl; }
template <typename T,
std::enable_if_t<std::is_same_v<double,T>, int> = 0>
void get_as() { std::cout << "get as double" << std::endl; }
};
int main() {
X<int> d;
d.get_as<double>();
return 0;
}
The ugly thing is that, with all these enable_if's only one specialization needs to be available for the compiler otherwise disambiguation error will arise. Thats why the default behaviour "get as T" needs also an enable if.
Probably the cleanest way to do this in C++17 and on-wards is to use a if constexpr in combination with the std::is_same_v type trait without explicitly specialisation at all:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename C>
class X {
public:
template <typename T>
void get_as() {
// Implementation part for all types
std::cout << "get as ";
// Implementation part for each type separately
if constexpr (std::is_same_v<double, T>) {
std::cout << "'double'";
} else if constexpr (std::is_same_v<int, T>) {
std::cout << "'int'";
} else {
std::cout << "(default)";
}
// Implementation part for all types
std::cout << std::endl;
return;
}
};
int main() {
X<int> d {};
d.get_as<double>(); // 'double'
d.get_as<int>(); // 'int'
d.get_as<float>(); // (default)
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Try it here!
If you need to have a return type as well you could declare the return type as auto:
template <typename T>
auto get_as() {
if constexpr (std::is_same_v<double, T>) {
return 0.5;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
What is the reason for the second brackets <> in the following function template:
template<> void doh::operator()<>(int i)
This came up in SO question where it was suggested that there are brackets missing after operator(), however I could not find the explanation.
I understand the meaning if it was a type specialization (full specialization) of the form:
template< typename A > struct AA {};
template<> struct AA<int> {}; // hope this is correct, specialize for int
However for function templates:
template< typename A > void f( A );
template< typename A > void f( A* ); // overload of the above for pointers
template<> void f<int>(int); // full specialization for int
Where does this fit into this scenarion?:
template<> void doh::operator()<>(bool b) {}
Example code that seems to work and does not give any warnings/error (gcc 3.3.3 used):
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
struct doh
{
void operator()(bool b)
{
cout << "operator()(bool b)" << endl;
}
template< typename T > void operator()(T t)
{
cout << "template <typename T> void operator()(T t)" << endl;
}
};
// note can't specialize inline, have to declare outside of the class body
template<> void doh::operator()(int i)
{
cout << "template <> void operator()(int i)" << endl;
}
template<> void doh::operator()(bool b)
{
cout << "template <> void operator()(bool b)" << endl;
}
int main()
{
doh d;
int i;
bool b;
d(b);
d(i);
}
Output:
operator()(bool b)
template <> void operator()(int i)
I've looked it up, and found that it is specified by 14.5.2/2:
A local class shall not have member templates. Access control rules (clause 11) apply to member template names. A destructor shall not be a member template. A normal (non-template) member function with a given name and type and a member function template of the same name, which could be used to generate a specialization of the same type, can both be declared in a class. When both exist, a use of that name and type refers to the non-template member unless an explicit template argument list is supplied.
And it provides an example:
template <class T> struct A {
void f(int);
template <class T2> void f(T2);
};
template <> void A<int>::f(int) { } // non-template member
template <> template <> void A<int>::f<>(int) { } // template member
int main()
{
A<char> ac;
ac.f(1); //non-template
ac.f(’c’); //template
ac.f<>(1); //template
}
Note that in Standard terms, specialization refers to the function you write using an explicit specialization and to the function generated using instantiation, in which case we have to do with a generated specialization. specialization does not only refer to functions you create using explicitly specializing a template, for which it is often only used.
Conclusion: GCC gets it wrong. Comeau, with which i also tested the code, gets it right and issues a diagnostic:
"ComeauTest.c", line 16: error: "void doh::operator()(bool)" is not an entity that
can be explicitly specialized
template<> void doh::operator()(bool i)
Note that it isn't complaining about the specialization of the template for int (only for bool), since it doesn't refer to the same name and type: The function type that specialization would have is void(int), which is distinct from the function type of the non-template member function, which is void(bool).