I need to get information from a class function. Said class has overloaded operators for basically any standard type. Therefore
double foo = exampleObject.getInformation();
and
std::string faa = exampleObject.getInformation();
Would both work. If the information can not be transformed into a double, foo will be set to 0. The initialization of faa will always work. (It can always be expressed as a string)
My problem is: I want to get the information and save it as a double variable, if that can not be done as the information is not of numeric type, I want the variable to be a string. I basically need a variable that can change its type. How do I do this? I'm sorry if that is a very basic question, C++ is not my main programming language.
Have you tried using Function Templates?
They won't change the type of a variable but will allow you to write your code in a way that works with more than 1 data type.
If c++ is not your main, I would recommend checking the checking the documentation for Function Templates on cplusplus.com
Here => https://cplusplus.com/doc/oldtutorial/templates/
Related
It's easy to do something like that in Python, but implementing it in C++ seems to be more challenging.
I actually have some solution to this, but I'd like to see if you can see any better solution.
Here's what I want to do.
I have a list of values of different types (string, integer, can be also instance of some class etc.). Now here's the first problem - in C++ (unlike in Python) all values in vector/array have to be of the same type.
The solution I can see is that I can use std::any like this: vector<std::any> list.
I also have an array/vector of functions (or pointers to functions) with different parameter types and returned values - one function can accept string and integer and return a char and other can accept a char and return an int. Here's another problem: in C++ you can have an array/vector of functions only if they have the same parameters and returned values (as far as I know) because in your declaration of the vector you need to define the parameter types and the returned value.
The other problem is that I need to retrieve the information about the parameters and the returned value for each function. In other words, having those functions, I need to know that this function accepts 2 strings and 1 integer and returns a char for example. In Python I can use inspect.signature function to retrieve information about type annotations of a function. In C++, I don't know if there is a way to do this.
The solution I can see here is to use std::any again (although I will use another solution, I will explain why later).
The solution I can see to this problem is that I won't retrieve that information but instead the user of the class which accepts this vector of functions will simply have to specify what are the parameter types and returned value for each function. In other words, the solution I can see is that I won't be retrieving the information about parameter types programmatically.
The other problem I have is that later I need to call one of those functions with some parameters. In Python I do this like this:
arguments = [1, 'str', some_object] // here I prepare a list of arguments (they are of different types)
func(**arguments)
In C++ I can do unpacking as well, but not if the parameters are of different types.
The solution I can see here is as follows. Those functions in the vector will all accepts only argument which is vector<std::any> args which will simply contain all of the arguments. Later when I want to call the function, I will simply construct a vector with std::any values and pass it as an argument. This would also solve the previous problem of not being able to store vector of functions with different parameters.
Can you see better solutions?
You might wonder what I need all of this is for. I do some program synthesis stuff and I need to programmatically construct programs from existing functions. I'm writing a library and I want the user of my library to be able to specify those base functions out of which I construct programs. In order to do what I want, I need to know what are the parameters and returned values of those functions and I need to call them later.
I believe what you are looking for is std::apply. You can use std::tuple instead of std::vector to store a list of values of different types -- as long as the types are known at compile-time. Then std::apply(f, t) in C++ is basically the same as f(*t) in Python.
I have a list of values of different types (string, integer, can be also instance of some class etc.).
A type which is a union of subtypes is called a sum type or tagged union. C++ has the template std::variant for that.
Now here's the first problem - in C++ (unlike in Python) all values in vector/array have to be of the same type.
Of course, so use cleverly C++ containers. You might want some std::map or std::vector of your particular instance of std::variant.
I also have an array/vector of functions
You probably want some std::vector of std::function-s and code with C++ lambda expressions
You should read a good C++ programming book
I'm writing a library and I want the user of my library to be able to specify those base functions out of which I construct programs.
You could get inspiration from SWIG and consider generating some C++ code in your library. So write (in Python or C++) your C++ metaprogram (generating some C++ code, like ANTLR does) which generates the user code, and your user would adapt his build automation tool for such a need (like users of GNU bison do).
You might also consider embedding Guile (or Lua) in your application.
PS. You might be interested by other programming languages like Ocaml, Go, Scheme (with Guile, and read SICP), Common Lisp (with SBCL), or Rust.
I wonder if there is a reason why the std::sto series (e.g. std::stoi, std::stol) is not a function template, like that:
template<typename T>
T sto(std::string const & str, std::size_t *pos = 0, int base = 10);
and then:
template<>
int sto<int>(std::string const & str, std::size_t *pos, int base)
{
// do the stuff.
}
template<>
long sto<long>(std::string const & str, std::size_t *pos, int base)
{
// do the stuff.
}
/* etc. */
In my sense, that would be a better design, because for the moment, when I have to convert a string in whatever numerical value an user want, I have to manually manage each case.
Is there a reason to not have such a template function? Is there an assumed choice, or is this just done like that?
Looking at the description of these functions at cppref, I note the following:
... Interprets a signed integer value in the string str.
1) calls std::strtol(str.c_str(), &ptr, base)...
and strol a "C" standard function that's also available in C++.
Reading further, we see: (for the c++ sto* functions):
Return value
The string converted to the specified signed integer type.
Exceptions
std::invalid_argument if no conversion could be performed
std::out_of_range if the converted value would fall out of the range of the result type or if the underlying function (std::strtol or
std::strtoll) sets errno to ERANGE.
So while I have no original source for this, and indeed have never worked with these functions, I would guess that:
TL;DR : These functions are C++-ish wrappers around already existing C/C++ functions -- strtol* -- so they resemble these functions as close as possible.
I have to manage manually each case. Is there a reason to not have such a template function?
In case of such questions, Eric Lippert (C#) usually says something along the lines:
If a feature is missing, then it's missing because noone implemented it yet. And that's because either noone else earlier wanted yet, or because it was considered not worth the effort, or because it couldn't have been finished before publishing the current release".
Here, I guess it's the "not worth" part, but I have neither asked the commitee about, nor managed to find any answer in old questions and faqs. I didn't spend much time searching though.
I say this because I suppose that most common of these functions' functionality (if not all of) is already contained in stream classes, like istringstream. Just like cin/etc, this one also has an all-having operator >>, overloaded for all base numeric types (and more).
Furthermore, the stream manipulators like std::hex (std::setbase) already solve the problem of passing various type-dependent configuration parameters to the actual conversion functions. No problems with mixed function signatures (like those mentioned by DavidHaim in his answer). Here's just a single operator>>.
So.. since if we have it in streams, if we already can read numbers/etc from strings with simple foo >> bar >> setbase(42) >> baz >> ..., then I think it was not worth the effort to add more complicated layers to old C runtime functions.
No proof for that though. Just a hunch.
The problem with template specialization is that the specialization requires you to match the original template function signature, so each specialization must implement the interface of (string,pos,base).
If you would like to have some other type which does not follows this interface, you are in trouble.
Suppose that, in the future, we would like to have sto<std::pair<int,int>>. We will want to have pos and base for the first and the second stringified integer. we would like the signature to be in the form of string,pos1,base1,pos2,base2. Since sto signature is already set, we cannot do it.
You can always wrap std::sto* in your implementation of sto for integral types, but you cannot do that the other way around.
The purpose of these functions is to provide simple conversions for common cases. They are not intended as a general-purpose conversion suite. std::ostringstream is much better for that kind of thing.
In my sense, there would be a better design, because for the moment,
when I have to convert a string in whatever numerical value an user
want, I have to manage manually each case.
No, it would not. Templates goal (deliberately setting T-MP apart) is not to replace overloading; you should always prefer overloading to templates. Actually, it's something the language already does for you! Between a candidate function and a possible template instantation, the former will be prefered. Using language features for the sake of it is bad.
I don't see how templates could help either. Whatever type the user decides to input, it won't be known till runtime, and template types are deduced at compile time. C++ is a statically typed language. In this case, templates will just add an unneeded layer of complexity over normal function overloading.
Ok, thanks everyone who has looked at this. I've recreated the exact scenario for easy viewing at the link below, so I'll just comment out the original text I had as it wasn't clear.
http://cpp.sh/5lp4l
In the comment section I show calling make_some(32, std::string{"hi"}) without specifying the Data type declaration for the call. I realize this seems insane and way above my expected use case, automatically inferring the composite type (inferring I wanted Data, based on the int/string) based on the arguments wasn't necessary, or a good idea.
The compiler is right. There's just no relation given between T and Args. Hence, it cannot determine what QueryResult<T> means.
What you apparently expect is that the return type of somefn forces T to be int, int. That's obviously not possible for two reasons: T denotes a single type, and there's just no mechanism by which the return statement somehow affects the template instantiation of make_some.
Have you tried using auto as type declaration?
Also decltype (variable_here) variable_to_inherit_type; sets the type of the second variable to that of the first variable. You might be able to first set the type the same as the incoming variable using this.
I am not sure if this will work in your case but let me know if it helps!
Usually in my code I need to use specific functions for various variables i.e.
object->SetStatus("var1",1); object->SetAddress("var1",&var1);
object->SetStatus("var2",1); object->SetAddress("var2",&var2);
object->SetStatus("var3",1); object->SetAddress("var3",&var3);
...
My idea is to use a function that will do this automatically by calling it, i.e.
object->function(var1,var2,var3,...);
To achieve that I have to solve 3 issues
I need to read the number of arguments when calling function()
I need to parse somehow the argument names inside the code
Since the variables are not of the same type, I need to find a way to make function() type "transparent"
Since I am newbie in c++ coding, I tried to search fo something similar, but I couldn't find anything.
Any help, advice or remark is more than welcome!
There are multiple ways to do so. One way is make a Base class and all your variable type will inherit from this base class. Then pass a map<string,Base> as an argument to you function. name of variable will be key and value will be actual variables. Iterate through the map and set and assign values to methods.
You could consider some variadic template, if coding in C++11 or C++14. There is considerable literature about that subject (e.g. this tutorial), which is a bit tricky (so explaining it here is not reasonable). Read also about parameter pack
You could also use C style varargs using <cstdarg>
Perhaps std::initializer_list could be useful too.
I was wondering if there is any way to pass an integer to a function which expects a enum type.
I need to use this function: void SetValue(enumtypevalue){ variable = value} that was made by a work mate and the enum is something like:
typedef enum
{
Obj1 = 0,
Obj2 = 1,
...
Objn = m,
}enumtype;
The thing is that this function is on a library I use in my program and there I know the number of the enum but not the name (Obj1, Obj2...) so I was wondering if its possible to do something like SetValue(4) instead of SetValue(Obj1)so my mate doesn't have to overwritte/change it and I don't have to hardcode all the enum (which is not small).
I know it sounds so stupid to pretend pass one type instead of another but if you pass 'Obj1' to the function its like saying '0' because they are related so that's why I make this 'fool' question.
Thanks.
You can cast an integer to an enum type with static_cast, e.g.
SetValue(static_cast<enumtype>(4));
That is an unmaintainable last resort, though. Part of the point of enums is to have something more meaningful than bare integer constants. Another reason why it's a good thing to use them is because integer constants may need to be changed for some reason, and it's then very hard to go and find all the places the constants are used in code that calls the function and change them accordingly.
Can't you get access to the enum type by #include-ing a header file from somewhere?