Related
The idea is simple and straight-forward:
Keep breaking the n dimensional vector into n-1 dimensional constituent vectors, until you have access to the primitive-datatype objects. Then add them all.
The problem is, how to infer the return type?
It can be done like this, but it already assumes the datatype of summing variable (return-type):
typedef int SumType;
template <class T>
T Sum (const T x)
{
return x;
}
template <class T>
SumType Sum (const std::vector<T>& v)
{
SumType sum = 0;
for (const auto& x: v)
sum += Sum(x);
return sum;
}
But I don't want to do it like above. I feel like its against the spirit of meta-programming.
We must infer the return-type by keeping dissecting the vector into its constituent vectors until we reach the primitive-datatype objects, and then choose the return-type as the primitive-datatype.
Is it possible in C++ ? (I'm noob in meta-programming)
P.S.
std::accumulate() from <numeric> could have been helpful, but it by-passes the problem by inferring the return-type from its third argument __init.
This can be done without any template meta programming. You can let the compiler infer the type using auto and decltype:
template <class T>
T Sum(const T x) {
return x;
}
template <class T>
auto Sum(const std::vector<T> &v) {
decltype(Sum(v[0])) sum = 0;
for (const auto &x : v)
sum += Sum(x);
return sum;
}
The return type of Sum is automatically deduced from sum and the type of sum is whatever Sum(v[0]) returns. Eventually you will end up with the first version of Sum which returns T and the compiler knows that type.
Demo
What we can do is use T.C.'s data_type class to get the the underlying type. That is defined as
template<class T> struct voider { typedef void type; };
template<class T, class = void>
struct data_type {
typedef T type;
};
template<class T>
struct data_type<T, typename voider<typename T::value_type>::type>
: data_type<typename T::value_type> {};
Using that we can modify the primary Sum to
template <class T, class Ret = typename data_type<std::vector<T>>::type>
Ret Sum (const std::vector<T>& v)
{
Ret sum = 0;
for (const auto& x: v)
sum += Sum(x);
return sum;
}
So then you can use something like
int main()
{
std::cout << Sum(std::vector<std::vector<std::vector<int>>>{{{1},{2},{3}},{{4},{5},{6}}});
}
which outputs
21
Live Example
You've almost figured out the answer for yourself. Pay attention to this line:
sum += Sum(x);
The type of sum, which is what we’re after, must be something compatible for assignment with the result of our recursive call to Sum. One such type, given your requirements, is certainly the result type of the call.
We don't have to rely on just a fuzzy feeling though. Meta-programming is, after all, programming. You may not have realised it, but your problem is one of well-founded recursion which means that the principle of induction can guide us towards an answer.
in the base case, we have a numerical, non-vector element_type element;, meaning our result type is… element_type. you've in fact already managed this step, it’s the first overload:
template<typename T>
T Sum(T element);
in the recursive case we have:
std::vector<element_type> vec;
the induction hypothesis, i.e.:
// given
element_type element;
// we know the following is well-formed and a numerical type
using recursive_result_type = decltype( Sum(element) );
Since the vector elements have type element_type, the induction hypothesis gives us that the result of calling Sum on them has all the properties we want. (The justification for our += intuition is rooted here.) We have our anser: we use recursive_result_type as-is.
Now as it turns out that second overload cannot just be written e.g. like so:
// doesn't behave as expected
template<typename Element>
auto Sum(std::vector<Element> const& vec) -> decltype( Sum(vec.front()) );
The reason being that the current Sum overload being declared is not in scope in the return type (even though it is in the definition body). One way to work around that is to rely on class scope, which is more accommodating:
// defining a functor type with operator() overloads
// would work just as well
struct SumImpl {
template<typename Element>
static T apply(Element element)
{ return element; }
template<typename Element>
static auto apply(std::vector<Element> const& vec)
-> decltype( apply(vec.front()) )
{
using result_type = decltype( apply(vec.front()) );
result_type sum = 0;
for(auto const& element: vec) {
sum += apply(element);
}
return sum;
}
};
template<typename Arg>
using sum_result_t = decltype( SumImpl::apply(std::declval<Arg const&>()) );
template<typename Arg>
sum_result_t<Arg> Sum(Arg const& arg)
{ return SumImpl::apply(arg); }
Coliru demo
Out of interest I am trying to implement a variadic template tuple type with dynamic access and I would like to avoid casts and returning boost::any or boost::variant. I have come to the point were every recursive inheritance stores a pointer to itself and I am able to return it like so:
ParentType& next() {
return *this;
}
I can call this when I write in source and iterate like so for example:
MyTupleImpl<int, std::string, float> myTuple;
myTuple.next().next().next();
which returns a
MyTupleImpl<float> &
I can then do some operations on the data held by this Tuple like so:
void DoSomething( myTuple.next().next().next().data);
I can write this down in source, but how could I implement it such that I just pass a number n and it applies the function next() n times on its returned reference.
I tried recursion along the lines of:
ParentType* get(int i, int j, OwnType k) {
std::cout << "j" << j << "i" << i << std::endl;
if (j < i) {
j++;
return k.next().get(i, j, k.next());
}
else
{
return k.current;
}
}
As is relatively obvious there is always a conflict with the return type of the function since the context in which its called like so:
myTuple.get(1,0,myTuple);
has its ParentType set but when next is called ParentType changes.
I can imagine that return Type deduction is one of the reasons why tuples can not be dynamically accessed. However why does the this work programmatically when I call in source.
myTuple.next().next();
for example.
I know this is somewhat confused however I hope some of you will understand what I mean and be able to help me. I apologize as I am somewhat of a Novice when it comes to C++ and templated classes.
I'm assuming the following bare-bones definitions for MyTuple:
template <class...>
struct MyTuple;
template <class Head, class... Tail>
struct MyTuple<Head, Tail...> : MyTuple<Tail...> {
Head data;
};
template <class T>
struct MyTuple<T> {
T data;
};
We can take advantage of their recursive nature to define a get(i) function on each layer, that will either "return" its data if i == 0, and pass the call over to the next layer otherwise.
Since we can't (or rather, don't want to) cram N different types into the return value, let's flip the flow control on its head: instead of having get return a reference and use it afterwards, we'll pass "use it afterwards" as an overloaded functor to get, which will call the correct overload.
template <class Head, class... Tail>
struct MyTuple<Head, Tail...> : MyTuple<Tail...> {
MyTuple<Tail...> &next() {
return *this;
}
template <class F>
auto get(std::size_t i, F &&f) {
return i
? next().get(i - 1u, std::forward<F>(f))
: std::forward<F>(f)(data);
}
Head data;
};
template <class T>
struct MyTuple<T> {
template <class F>
auto get(std::size_t i, F &&f) {
assert(!i);
return std::forward<F>(f)(data);
}
T data;
};
The return value of get is the return value of the selected overload. Its type is the common type (as std::common_type would return) of all of the involved overloads. Using it looks like this:
MyTuple<float, int, double> tup;
struct {
void operator()(float) const { }
void operator()(int) const { }
void operator()(double) const { }
} func;
for(std::size_t i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
tup.get(i, func);
Each iteration of the loop will call the corresponding overload with the required data.
See it live on Coliru
why does the this work programmatically when i call in source.
myTuple.next().next();
Because the type is known at compile time. There are no runtime arguments, like in your get(int i, int j, OwnType k) attempt. Your attempt cannot possibly work, but following would be possible to implement:
template<class... Ts>
template<std::size_t I>
magic_type& MyTupleImpl<Ts...>::get();
// magic_type is not actual code. It is a
// placeholder for a proper implementation
Template arguments are known at compile time, so this can work. Now we must use template magic to figure out the correct type to return. You'll need to use a recursive helper template similar to the following (this example is modified from cppreference):
template< std::size_t I, class T >
struct tuple_element;
// recursive case
template< std::size_t I, class Head, class... Tail >
struct tuple_element<I, MyTupleImpl<Head, Tail...>>
: tuple_element<I-1, MyTupleImpl<Tail...>> { };
// base case
template< class Head, class... Tail >
struct tuple_element<0, MyTupleImpl<Head, Tail...>> {
typedef Head type;
};
With the help of this, we could declare:
template<class... Ts>
template<std::size_t I>
typename tuple_element<I, Ts...>::type&
MyTupleImpl<Ts...>::get();
I'll leave the implementation of MyTupleImpl::get as an exercise.
Warning: No code in this answer has been tested in any way.
I am working on a simple CSV parser that would store the lines of a file in a tuple. This would be an easy task if it wasn't for the fact that the number of entries on the lines inside the file is a variable, as well as their type. Thus, the lines could be like that:
1,2.2,hello,18,world
The parser should be able to work like this:
ifstream file("input.csv");
SimpleCSVParser<int, float, string, int, string> parser(file);
Things get complex when I try to implement a function to parse the actual line. I still have not found a way to extract the next type from the parameter list to declare the variable before calling file >> var on it. I would also need to do this in a loop, somehow constructing a tuple from the results of each iteration.
So how do I parse the string into a tuple using plain C++11?
I tried this:
template <typename ...Targs>
tuple<Targs...> SimpleCSVParser<Targs...>::iterator::operator*() {
istringstream in(cur);
in.imbue(locale(locale(), new commasep)); // for comma separation
tuple<Targs...> t;
for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof...(Targs); ++i) {
tuple_element<i,decltype(t)>::type first;
in >> first;
auto newt = make_tuple(first);
// what do I do here?
}
}
But it doesn't work since the tuple I use to extract types is empty.
It seems, you try to iterate over tuple indices/types which doesn't work, I think. What you can do, however, is to just call a read function for each member. The idea is to delegate processing of the tuple to a function which uses a parameter pack to expand an operation to an operation on each element. std::index_sequence<...> can be used to get the sequence of integers.
Something like this:
template <typename T>
bool read_tuple_element(std::istream& in, T& value) {
in >> value;
return true;
}
template <typename Tuple, std::size_t... I>
void read_tuple_elements(std::istream& in, Tuple& value, std::index_sequence<I...>) {
std::initializer_list<bool>{ read_tuple_element(in, std::get<I>(value))... });
}
template <typename ...Targs>
tuple<Targs...> SimpleCSVParser<Targs...>::iterator::operator*() {
std::istringstream in(cur);
in.imbue(std::locale(std::locale(), new commasep)); // for comma separation
std::tuple<Targs...> t;
read_tuple_elements(in, t, std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Targs)>{});
if (in) { // you may want to check if all data was consumed by adding && in.eof()
// now do something with the filled t;
}
else {
// the value could *not* successfully be read: somehow deal with that
}
}
The basic idea of the above code is simply to create a suitable sequence of calls to read_tuple_element(). Before jumping into the generic code, assume we'd want to implement reading of a std::tuple<T0, T1, T2> value with just three elements. We could implement the read using (using rte() instead of read_tuple_element() for brevity):
rte(get<0>(value)), rte(get<1>(value)), rte(get<2>(value));
Now, instead of writing this out for each number of elements, if we had an index sequence std::size_t... I we could get this sequence [nearly] using
rte(get<I>(value))...;
It isn't allowed to expand a parameter pack like this, though. Instead, the parameter pack needs to be put into some context. The code above uses a std::initializer_list<bool> for this purpose: the elements of a std::initializer_list<T> are constructed in the order listed. That is, we got
std::initializer_list<bool>{ rte(get<I>(value))... };
The missing bit is how to create the parameter pack I evaluating to a sequence of suitable indices. Conveniently, the standard library defines std::make_index_sequence<Size> which creates a std::index_sequence<I...> with a sequence of values for I as 0, 1, 2, ..., Size-1. So, calling read_tuple_elements() with std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Targs){} creates an object with a suitable list of arguments which can be deduced and then used to expand the tuple into a sequence of elements passed to read_tuple_element().
You cannot use tuples like this.
This would be an easy task if it wasn't for the fact that the number
of entries on the lines inside the file is a variable, as well as
their type.
If I understand, you only know your wanted tuples size and types at run-time while processing your file. Unfortunately this must be known at compile-time...
If you really want to use tuples, you have to make a pre treatment on your file to determine the data size and types. Then you can use the right tuples accordingly. But you cannot do that directly.
The usual method to do something like this via type erasure, for example using a union of all possible value types plus a flag indicating which is the actual entry
namespace generic_type {
struct generic
{
enum type { Void=0, Bool=1, Int=2, String=3, Float=4 };
type Type=Void;
union {
bool B;
std::int64_t I;
std::string S;
double X;
}
generic() = default;
generic(generic&&) = default;
generic(generic const&) = default;
generic(bool b) : Type(Bool), B(b) {}
generic(std::int64_t i) : Type(Int), I(i) {}
generic(std::uint64_t i) : Type(Int), I(i) {}
generic(std::string const&s) : Type(String), S(s) {}
generic(std::string &&s) : Type(String), S(std::move(s)) {}
generic(double x) : Type(Float), X(x) {}
};
namespace details {// auxiliary stuff
template<typename T, typename E=void>
struct traits
{
static constexpr generic::type Type=generic::Void;
static void get(generic const&) {}
};
template<>
struct traits<bool,void>
{
static constexpr generic::type Type=generic::Bool;
static bool get(generic const&x) { return x.B; }
};
template<typename T>
struct traits<T,enable_if_t<std::is_integral<T>::value>
{
static constexpr generic::type Type=generic::Int;
static T get(generic const&x) { return x.I; }
};
template<>
struct traits<std::string,void>
{
static constexpr generic::type Type=generic::Str;
static std::string const& get(generic const&x) { return x.S; }
static std::string&& get(generic&&x) { return std::move(x.S); }
};
template<T>
struct traits<float,enable_if<std::is_same<T,float>::value ||
std::is_same<T,double>::value>
{
static constexpr generic::type Type=generic::Float; };
static T get(generic const&x) { return x.X; }
}
}
template<typename T>
auto unsafe_extract(generic const&x)
-> decltype(details::traits<T>::get(x))
{ return details::traits<T>::get(x); }
template<typename T>
auto unsafe_extract(generic&&x)
-> decltype(details::traits<T>::get(std::move(x)))
{ return details::traits<T>::get(std::move(x)); }
template<typename T>
auto extract(generic const&x)
-> decltype(unsafe_extract(x))
{
if(details::traits<T>::Type != x.Type)
throw std::runtime_error("type mismatch in extract(generic)");
return unsafe_extract(x);
}
template<typename T>
auto extract(generic&&x)
-> decltype(unsafe_extract(std::move(x)))
{
if(details::traits<T>::Type != x.Type)
throw std::runtime_error("type mismatch in extract(generic&&)");
return unsafe_extract(std::move(x));
}
}
using generic_type::generic;
and then you can store your data in a std::vector<generic>.
for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof...(Targs); ++i) {
tuple_element<i,decltype(t)>::type first;
in >> first;
auto newt = make_tuple(first);
// what do I do here?
}
This is runtime. You should consider using recursive functions using variadic templates. That would be compile time.
If you use std::tuple_cat you should be able to add each subsequent value to the tuple. I would also reccommend using C++14 return type deduction if I were you it eliminates the need to know the return type.
How can I use std::make_tuple if the execution order of the constructors is important?
For example I guess the execution order of the constructor of class A and the constructor of class B is undefined for:
std::tuple<A, B> t(std::make_tuple(A(std::cin), B(std::cin)));
I came to that conclusion after reading a comment to the question
Translating a std::tuple into a template parameter pack
that says that this
template<typename... args>
std::tuple<args...> parse(std::istream &stream) {
return std::make_tuple(args(stream)...);
}
implementation has an undefined execution order of the constructors.
Update, providing some context:
To give some more background to what I am trying to do, here is a sketch:
I want to read in some serialized objects from stdin with the help of CodeSynthesis XSD binary parsing/serializing. Here is an example of how such parsing and serialization is done: example/cxx/tree/binary/xdr/driver.cxx
xml_schema::istream<XDR> ixdr (xdr);
std::auto_ptr<catalog> copy (new catalog (ixdr));
I want to be able to specify a list of the classes that the serialized objects have (e.g. catalog, catalog, someOtherSerializableClass for 3 serialized objects) and store that information as a typedef
template <typename... Args>
struct variadic_typedef {};
typedef variadic_typedef<catalog, catalog, someOtherSerializableClass> myTypes;
as suggested in Is it possible to “store” a template parameter pack without expanding it?
and find a way to get a std::tuple to work with after the parsing has finished. A sketch:
auto serializedObjects(binaryParse<myTypes>(std::cin));
where serializedObjects would have the type
std::tuple<catalog, catalog, someOtherSerializableClass>
The trivial solution is not to use std::make_tuple(...) in the first place but to construct a std::tuple<...> directly: The order in which constructors for the members are called is well defined:
template <typename>
std::istream& dummy(std::istream& in) {
return in;
}
template <typename... T>
std::tuple<T...> parse(std::istream& in) {
return std::tuple<T...>(dummy<T>(in)...);
}
The function template dummy<T>() is only used to have something to expand on. The order is imposed by construction order of the elements in the std::tuple<T...>:
template <typename... T>
template <typename... U>
std::tuple<T...>::tuple(U...&& arg)
: members_(std::forward<U>(arg)...) { // NOTE: pseudo code - the real code is
} // somewhat more complex
Following the discussion below and Xeo's comment it seems that a better alternative is to use
template <typename... T>
std::tuple<T...> parse(std::istream& in) {
return std::tuple<T...>{ T(in)... };
}
The use of brace initialization works because the order of evaluation of the arguments in a brace initializer list is the order in which they appear. The semantics of T{...} are described in 12.6.1 [class.explicit.init] paragraph 2 stating that it follows the rules of list initialization semantics (note: this has nothing to do with std::initializer_list which only works with homogenous types). The ordering constraint is in 8.5.4 [dcl.init.list] paragraph 4.
As the comment says, you could just use initializer-list:
return std::tuple<args...>{args(stream)...};
which will work for std::tuple and suchlikes (which supports initializer-list).
But I got another solution which is more generic, and can be useful where initializer-list cannot be used. So lets solve this without using initializer-list:
template<typename... args>
std::tuple<args...> parse(std::istream &stream) {
return std::make_tuple(args(stream)...);
}
Before I explain my solution, I would like to discuss the problem first. In fact, thinking about the problem step by step would also help us to come up with a solution eventually. So, to simply the discussion (and thinking-process), lets assume that args expands to 3 distinct types viz. X, Y, Z, i.e args = {X, Y, Z} and then we can think along these lines, reaching towards the solution step-by-step:
First and foremost, the constructors of X, Y, and Z can be executed in any order, because the order in which function arguments are evaluated is unspecified by the C++ Standard.
But we want X to construct first, then Y, and Z. Or at least we want to simulate that behavior, which means X must be constructed with data that is in the beginning of the input stream (say that data is xData) and Y must be constructed with data that comes immediately after xData, and so on.
As we know, X is not guaranteed to be constructed first, so we need to pretend. Basically, we will read the data from the stream as if it is in the beginning of the stream, even if Z is constructed first, that seems impossible. It is impossible as long as we read from the input stream, but we read data from some indexable data structure such as std::vector, then it is possible.
So my solution does this: it will populate a std::vector first, and then all arguments will read data from this vector.
My solution assumes that each line in the stream contains all the data needed to construct an object of any type.
Code:
//PARSE FUNCTION
template<typename... args>
std::tuple<args...> parse(std::istream &stream)
{
const int N = sizeof...(args);
return tuple_maker<args...>().make(stream, typename genseq<N>::type() );
}
And tuple_maker is defined as:
//FRAMEWORK - HELPER ETC
template<int ...>
struct seq {};
template<int M, int ...N>
struct genseq : genseq<M-1,M-1, N...> {};
template<int ...N>
struct genseq<0,N...>
{
typedef seq<N...> type;
};
template<typename...args>
struct tuple_maker
{
template<int ...N>
std::tuple<args...> make(std::istream & stream, const seq<N...> &)
{
return std::make_tuple(args(read_arg<N>(stream))...);
}
std::vector<std::string> m_params;
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<std::stringstream>> m_streams;
template<int Index>
std::stringstream & read_arg(std::istream & stream)
{
if ( m_params.empty() )
{
std::string line;
while ( std::getline(stream, line) ) //read all at once!
{
m_params.push_back(line);
}
}
auto pstream = new std::stringstream(m_params.at(Index));
m_streams.push_back(std::unique_ptr<std::stringstream>(pstream));
return *pstream;
}
};
TEST CODE
///TEST CODE
template<int N>
struct A
{
std::string data;
A(std::istream & stream)
{
stream >> data;
}
friend std::ostream& operator << (std::ostream & out, A<N> const & a)
{
return out << "A" << N << "::data = " << a.data ;
}
};
//three distinct classes!
typedef A<1> A1;
typedef A<2> A2;
typedef A<3> A3;
int main()
{
std::stringstream ss("A1\nA2\nA3\n");
auto tuple = parse<A1,A2,A3>(ss);
std::cout << std::get<0>(tuple) << std::endl;
std::cout << std::get<1>(tuple) << std::endl;
std::cout << std::get<2>(tuple) << std::endl;
}
Output:
A1::data = A1
A2::data = A2
A3::data = A3
which is expected. See demo at ideone yourself. :-)
Note that this solution avoids the order-of-reading-from-the-stream problem by reading all the lines in the first call to read_arg itself, and all the later calls just read from the std::vector, using the index.
Now you can put some printf in the constructor of the classes, just to see that the order of construction is not same as the order of template arguments to the parse function template, which is interesting. Also, the technique used here can be useful for places where list-initialization cannot be used.
There's nothing special about make_tuple here. Any function call in C++ allows its arguments to be called in an unspecified order (allowing the compiler freedom to optimize).
I really don't suggest having constructors that have side-effects such that the order is important (this will be a maintenance nightmare), but if you absolutely need this, you can always construct the objects explicitly to set the order you want:
A a(std::cin);
std::tuple<A, B> t(std::make_tuple(a, B(std::cin)));
This answer comes from a comment I made to the template pack question
Since make_tuple deduces the tuple type from the constructed components and function arguments have undefined evaluation ordder, the construction has to happen inside the machinery, which is what I proposed in the comment. In that case, there's no need to use make_tuple; you could construct the tuple directly from the tuple type. But that doesn't order construction either; what I do here is construct each component of the tuple, and then build a tuple of references to the components. The tuple of references can be easily converted to a tuple of the desired type, provided the components are easy to move or copy.
Here's the solution (from the lws link in the comment) slightly modified, and explained a bit. This version only handles tuples whose types are all different, but it's easier to understand; there's another version below which does it correctly. As with the original, the tuple components are all given the same constructor argument, but changing that simply requires adding a ... to the lines indicated with // Note: ...
#include <tuple>
#include <type_traits>
template<typename...T> struct ConstructTuple {
// For convenience, the resulting tuple type
using type = std::tuple<T...>;
// And the tuple of references type
using ref_type = std::tuple<T&...>;
// Wrap each component in a struct which will be used to construct the component
// and hold its value.
template<typename U> struct Wrapper {
U value;
template<typename Arg>
Wrapper(Arg&& arg)
: value(std::forward<Arg>(arg)) {
}
};
// The implementation class derives from all of the Wrappers.
// C++ guarantees that base classes are constructed in order, and
// Wrappers are listed in the specified order because parameter packs don't
// reorder.
struct Impl : Wrapper<T>... {
template<typename Arg> Impl(Arg&& arg) // Note ...Arg, ...arg
: Wrapper<T>(std::forward<Arg>(arg))... {}
};
template<typename Arg> ConstructTuple(Arg&& arg) // Note ...Arg, ...arg
: impl(std::forward<Arg>(arg)), // Note ...
value((static_cast<Wrapper<T>&>(impl)).value...) {
}
operator type() const { return value; }
ref_type operator()() const { return value; }
Impl impl;
ref_type value;
};
// Finally, a convenience alias in case we want to give `ConstructTuple`
// a tuple type instead of a list of types:
template<typename Tuple> struct ConstructFromTupleHelper;
template<typename...T> struct ConstructFromTupleHelper<std::tuple<T...>> {
using type = ConstructTuple<T...>;
};
template<typename Tuple>
using ConstructFromTuple = typename ConstructFromTupleHelper<Tuple>::type;
Let's take it for a spin
#include <iostream>
// Three classes with constructors
struct Hello { char n; Hello(decltype(n) n) : n(n) { std::cout << "Hello, "; }; };
struct World { double n; World(decltype(n) n) : n(n) { std::cout << "world"; }; };
struct Bang { int n; Bang(decltype(n) n) : n(n) { std::cout << "!\n"; }; };
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const Hello& g) { return out << g.n; }
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const World& g) { return out << g.n; }
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const Bang& g) { return out << g.n; }
using std::get;
using Greeting = std::tuple<Hello, World, Bang>;
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const Greeting &n) {
return out << get<0>(n) << ' ' << get<1>(n) << ' ' << get<2>(n);
}
int main() {
// Constructors run in order
Greeting greet = ConstructFromTuple<Greeting>(33.14159);
// Now show the result
std::cout << greet << std::endl;
return 0;
}
See it in action on liveworkspace. Verify that it constructs in the same order in both clang and gcc (libc++'s tuple implementation holds tuple components in the reverse order to stdlibc++, so it's a reasonable test, I guess.)
To make this work with tuples which might have more than one of the same component, it's necessary to modify Wrapper to be a unique struct for each component. The easiest way to do this is to add a second template parameter, which is a sequential index (both libc++ and libstdc++ do this in their tuple implementations; it's a standard technique). It would be handy to have the "indices" implementation kicking around to do this, but for exposition purposes, I've just done a quick-and-dirty recursion:
#include <tuple>
#include <type_traits>
template<typename T, int I> struct Item {
using type = T;
static const int value = I;
};
template<typename...TI> struct ConstructTupleI;
template<typename...T, int...I> struct ConstructTupleI<Item<T, I>...> {
using type = std::tuple<T...>;
using ref_type = std::tuple<T&...>;
// I is just to distinguish different wrappers from each other
template<typename U, int J> struct Wrapper {
U value;
template<typename Arg>
Wrapper(Arg&& arg)
: value(std::forward<Arg>(arg)) {
}
};
struct Impl : Wrapper<T, I>... {
template<typename Arg> Impl(Arg&& arg)
: Wrapper<T, I>(std::forward<Arg>(arg))... {}
};
template<typename Arg> ConstructTupleI(Arg&& arg)
: impl(std::forward<Arg>(arg)),
value((static_cast<Wrapper<T, I>&>(impl)).value...) {
}
operator type() const { return value; }
ref_type operator()() const { return value; }
Impl impl;
ref_type value;
};
template<typename...T> struct List{};
template<typename L, typename...T> struct WrapNum;
template<typename...TI> struct WrapNum<List<TI...>> {
using type = ConstructTupleI<TI...>;
};
template<typename...TI, typename T, typename...Rest>
struct WrapNum<List<TI...>, T, Rest...>
: WrapNum<List<TI..., Item<T, sizeof...(TI)>>, Rest...> {
};
// Use WrapNum to make ConstructTupleI from ConstructTuple
template<typename...T> using ConstructTuple = typename WrapNum<List<>, T...>::type;
// Finally, a convenience alias in case we want to give `ConstructTuple`
// a tuple type instead of a list of types:
template<typename Tuple> struct ConstructFromTupleHelper;
template<typename...T> struct ConstructFromTupleHelper<std::tuple<T...>> {
using type = ConstructTuple<T...>;
};
template<typename Tuple>
using ConstructFromTuple = typename ConstructFromTupleHelper<Tuple>::type;
With test here.
I believe the only way to manually unroll the definition. Something like the following might work. I welcome attempts to make it nicer though.
#include <iostream>
#include <tuple>
struct A { A(std::istream& is) {}};
struct B { B(std::istream& is) {}};
template <typename... Ts>
class Parser
{ };
template <typename T>
class Parser<T>
{
public:
static std::tuple<T> parse(std::istream& is) {return std::make_tuple(T(is)); }
};
template <typename T, typename... Ts>
class Parser<T, Ts...>
{
public:
static std::tuple<T,Ts...> parse(std::istream& is)
{
A t(is);
return std::tuple_cat(std::tuple<T>(std::move(t)),
Parser<Ts...>::parse(is));
}
};
int main()
{
Parser<A,B>::parse(std::cin);
return 1;
}
I'm trying to find a method to iterate over an a pack variadic template argument list.
Now as with all iterations, you need some sort of method of knowing how many arguments are in the packed list, and more importantly how to individually get data from a packed argument list.
The general idea is to iterate over the list, store all data of type int into a vector, store all data of type char* into a vector, and store all data of type float, into a vector. During this process there also needs to be a seperate vector that stores individual chars of what order the arguments went in. As an example, when you push_back(a_float), you're also doing a push_back('f') which is simply storing an individual char to know the order of the data. I could also use a std::string here and simply use +=. The vector was just used as an example.
Now the way the thing is designed is the function itself is constructed using a macro, despite the evil intentions, it's required, as this is an experiment. So it's literally impossible to use a recursive call, since the actual implementation that will house all this will be expanded at compile time; and you cannot recruse a macro.
Despite all possible attempts, I'm still stuck at figuring out how to actually do this. So instead I'm using a more convoluted method that involves constructing a type, and passing that type into the varadic template, expanding it inside a vector and then simply iterating that. However I do not want to have to call the function like:
foo(arg(1), arg(2.0f), arg("three");
So the real question is how can I do without such? To give you guys a better understanding of what the code is actually doing, I've pasted the optimistic approach that I'm currently using.
struct any {
void do_i(int e) { INT = e; }
void do_f(float e) { FLOAT = e; }
void do_s(char* e) { STRING = e; }
int INT;
float FLOAT;
char *STRING;
};
template<typename T> struct get { T operator()(const any& t) { return T(); } };
template<> struct get<int> { int operator()(const any& t) { return t.INT; } };
template<> struct get<float> { float operator()(const any& t) { return t.FLOAT; } };
template<> struct get<char*> { char* operator()(const any& t) { return t.STRING; } };
#define def(name) \
template<typename... T> \
auto name (T... argv) -> any { \
std::initializer_list<any> argin = { argv... }; \
std::vector<any> args = argin;
#define get(name,T) get<T>()(args[name])
#define end }
any arg(int a) { any arg; arg.INT = a; return arg; }
any arg(float f) { any arg; arg.FLOAT = f; return arg; }
any arg(char* s) { any arg; arg.STRING = s; return arg; }
I know this is nasty, however it's a pure experiment, and will not be used in production code. It's purely an idea. It could probably be done a better way. But an example of how you would use this system:
def(foo)
int data = get(0, int);
std::cout << data << std::endl;
end
looks a lot like python. it works too, but the only problem is how you call this function.
Heres a quick example:
foo(arg(1000));
I'm required to construct a new any type, which is highly aesthetic, but thats not to say those macros are not either. Aside the point, I just want to the option of doing:
foo(1000);
I know it can be done, I just need some sort of iteration method, or more importantly some std::get method for packed variadic template argument lists. Which I'm sure can be done.
Also to note, I'm well aware that this is not exactly type friendly, as I'm only supporting int,float,char* and thats okay with me. I'm not requiring anything else, and I'll add checks to use type_traits to validate that the arguments passed are indeed the correct ones to produce a compile time error if data is incorrect. This is purely not an issue. I also don't need support for anything other then these POD types.
It would be highly apprecaited if I could get some constructive help, opposed to arguments about my purely illogical and stupid use of macros and POD only types. I'm well aware of how fragile and broken the code is. This is merley an experiment, and I can later rectify issues with non-POD data, and make it more type-safe and useable.
Thanks for your undertstanding, and I'm looking forward to help.
If your inputs are all of the same type, see OMGtechy's great answer.
For mixed-types we can use fold expressions (introduced in c++17) with a callable (in this case, a lambda):
#include <iostream>
template <class ... Ts>
void Foo (Ts && ... inputs)
{
int i = 0;
([&]
{
// Do things in your "loop" lambda
++i;
std::cout << "input " << i << " = " << inputs << std::endl;
} (), ...);
}
int main ()
{
Foo(2, 3, 4u, (int64_t) 9, 'a', 2.3);
}
Live demo
(Thanks to glades for pointing out in the comments that I didn't need to explicitly pass inputs to the lambda. This made it a lot neater.)
If you need return/breaks in your loop, here are some workarounds:
Demo using try/throw. Note that throws can cause tremendous slow down of this function; so only use this option if speed isn't important, or the break/returns are genuinely exceptional.
Demo using variable/if switches.
These latter answers are honestly a code smell, but shows it's general-purpose.
If you want to wrap arguments to any, you can use the following setup. I also made the any class a bit more usable, although it isn't technically an any class.
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
struct any {
enum type {Int, Float, String};
any(int e) { m_data.INT = e; m_type = Int;}
any(float e) { m_data.FLOAT = e; m_type = Float;}
any(char* e) { m_data.STRING = e; m_type = String;}
type get_type() const { return m_type; }
int get_int() const { return m_data.INT; }
float get_float() const { return m_data.FLOAT; }
char* get_string() const { return m_data.STRING; }
private:
type m_type;
union {
int INT;
float FLOAT;
char *STRING;
} m_data;
};
template <class ...Args>
void foo_imp(const Args&... args)
{
std::vector<any> vec = {args...};
for (unsigned i = 0; i < vec.size(); ++i) {
switch (vec[i].get_type()) {
case any::Int: std::cout << vec[i].get_int() << '\n'; break;
case any::Float: std::cout << vec[i].get_float() << '\n'; break;
case any::String: std::cout << vec[i].get_string() << '\n'; break;
}
}
}
template <class ...Args>
void foo(Args... args)
{
foo_imp(any(args)...); //pass each arg to any constructor, and call foo_imp with resulting any objects
}
int main()
{
char s[] = "Hello";
foo(1, 3.4f, s);
}
It is however possible to write functions to access the nth argument in a variadic template function and to apply a function to each argument, which might be a better way of doing whatever you want to achieve.
Range based for loops are wonderful:
#include <iostream>
#include <any>
template <typename... Things>
void printVariadic(Things... things) {
for(const auto p : {things...}) {
std::cout << p.type().name() << std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
printVariadic(std::any(42), std::any('?'), std::any("C++"));
}
For me, this produces the output:
i
c
PKc
Here's an example without std::any, which might be easier to understand for those not familiar with std::type_info:
#include <iostream>
template <typename... Things>
void printVariadic(Things... things) {
for(const auto p : {things...}) {
std::cout << p << std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
printVariadic(1, 2, 3);
}
As you might expect, this produces:
1
2
3
You can create a container of it by initializing it with your parameter pack between {}. As long as the type of params... is homogeneous or at least convertable to the element type of your container, it will work. (tested with g++ 4.6.1)
#include <array>
template <class... Params>
void f(Params... params) {
std::array<int, sizeof...(params)> list = {params...};
}
This is not how one would typically use Variadic templates, not at all.
Iterations over a variadic pack is not possible, as per the language rules, so you need to turn toward recursion.
class Stock
{
public:
bool isInt(size_t i) { return _indexes.at(i).first == Int; }
int getInt(size_t i) { assert(isInt(i)); return _ints.at(_indexes.at(i).second); }
// push (a)
template <typename... Args>
void push(int i, Args... args) {
_indexes.push_back(std::make_pair(Int, _ints.size()));
_ints.push_back(i);
this->push(args...);
}
// push (b)
template <typename... Args>
void push(float f, Args... args) {
_indexes.push_back(std::make_pair(Float, _floats.size()));
_floats.push_back(f);
this->push(args...);
}
private:
// push (c)
void push() {}
enum Type { Int, Float; };
typedef size_t Index;
std::vector<std::pair<Type,Index>> _indexes;
std::vector<int> _ints;
std::vector<float> _floats;
};
Example (in action), suppose we have Stock stock;:
stock.push(1, 3.2f, 4, 5, 4.2f); is resolved to (a) as the first argument is an int
this->push(args...) is expanded to this->push(3.2f, 4, 5, 4.2f);, which is resolved to (b) as the first argument is a float
this->push(args...) is expanded to this->push(4, 5, 4.2f);, which is resolved to (a) as the first argument is an int
this->push(args...) is expanded to this->push(5, 4.2f);, which is resolved to (a) as the first argument is an int
this->push(args...) is expanded to this->push(4.2f);, which is resolved to (b) as the first argument is a float
this->push(args...) is expanded to this->push();, which is resolved to (c) as there is no argument, thus ending the recursion
Thus:
Adding another type to handle is as simple as adding another overload, changing the first type (for example, std::string const&)
If a completely different type is passed (say Foo), then no overload can be selected, resulting in a compile-time error.
One caveat: Automatic conversion means a double would select overload (b) and a short would select overload (a). If this is not desired, then SFINAE need be introduced which makes the method slightly more complicated (well, their signatures at least), example:
template <typename T, typename... Args>
typename std::enable_if<is_int<T>::value>::type push(T i, Args... args);
Where is_int would be something like:
template <typename T> struct is_int { static bool constexpr value = false; };
template <> struct is_int<int> { static bool constexpr value = true; };
Another alternative, though, would be to consider a variant type. For example:
typedef boost::variant<int, float, std::string> Variant;
It exists already, with all utilities, it can be stored in a vector, copied, etc... and seems really much like what you need, even though it does not use Variadic Templates.
There is no specific feature for it right now but there are some workarounds you can use.
Using initialization list
One workaround uses the fact, that subexpressions of initialization lists are evaluated in order. int a[] = {get1(), get2()} will execute get1 before executing get2. Maybe fold expressions will come handy for similar techniques in the future. To call do() on every argument, you can do something like this:
template <class... Args>
void doSomething(Args... args) {
int x[] = {args.do()...};
}
However, this will only work when do() is returning an int. You can use the comma operator to support operations which do not return a proper value.
template <class... Args>
void doSomething(Args... args) {
int x[] = {(args.do(), 0)...};
}
To do more complex things, you can put them in another function:
template <class Arg>
void process(Arg arg, int &someOtherData) {
// You can do something with arg here.
}
template <class... Args>
void doSomething(Args... args) {
int someOtherData;
int x[] = {(process(args, someOtherData), 0)...};
}
Note that with generic lambdas (C++14), you can define a function to do this boilerplate for you.
template <class F, class... Args>
void do_for(F f, Args... args) {
int x[] = {(f(args), 0)...};
}
template <class... Args>
void doSomething(Args... args) {
do_for([&](auto arg) {
// You can do something with arg here.
}, args...);
}
Using recursion
Another possibility is to use recursion. Here is a small example that defines a similar function do_for as above.
template <class F, class First, class... Rest>
void do_for(F f, First first, Rest... rest) {
f(first);
do_for(f, rest...);
}
template <class F>
void do_for(F f) {
// Parameter pack is empty.
}
template <class... Args>
void doSomething(Args... args) {
do_for([&](auto arg) {
// You can do something with arg here.
}, args...);
}
You can't iterate, but you can recurse over the list. Check the printf() example on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C++0x#Variadic_templates
You can use multiple variadic templates, this is a bit messy, but it works and is easy to understand.
You simply have a function with the variadic template like so:
template <typename ...ArgsType >
void function(ArgsType... Args){
helperFunction(Args...);
}
And a helper function like so:
void helperFunction() {}
template <typename T, typename ...ArgsType >
void helperFunction(T t, ArgsType... Args) {
//do what you want with t
function(Args...);
}
Now when you call "function" the "helperFunction" will be called and isolate the first passed parameter from the rest, this variable can b used to call another function (or something). Then "function" will be called again and again until there are no more variables left. Note you might have to declare helperClass before "function".
The final code will look like this:
void helperFunction();
template <typename T, typename ...ArgsType >
void helperFunction(T t, ArgsType... Args);
template <typename ...ArgsType >
void function(ArgsType... Args){
helperFunction(Args...);
}
void helperFunction() {}
template <typename T, typename ...ArgsType >
void helperFunction(T t, ArgsType... Args) {
//do what you want with t
function(Args...);
}
The code is not tested.
#include <iostream>
template <typename Fun>
void iteratePack(const Fun&) {}
template <typename Fun, typename Arg, typename ... Args>
void iteratePack(const Fun &fun, Arg &&arg, Args&& ... args)
{
fun(std::forward<Arg>(arg));
iteratePack(fun, std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
template <typename ... Args>
void test(const Args& ... args)
{
iteratePack([&](auto &arg)
{
std::cout << arg << std::endl;
},
args...);
}
int main()
{
test(20, "hello", 40);
return 0;
}
Output:
20
hello
40