my header code:
template <typename T>
class A
{
}
template<> class A<short>;
template<> class A<float>;
in my cpp, i want to use a map to contain different type a, like following code:
class B
{
map<int, A*> a; /* how to declare a */
public:
AddA(int key, int type)
{
if (type == 1)
{
a.insert({ key, new A<short>() });
}
else
{
a.insert({ key, new A<float>() });
}
}
template<typename T>
func(int key, T v)
{
a[key].func(v);
}
};
question: how to implement it?
edit # 0410, here is my solution:
class ABase
{
virtual void func(void* t)=0;
}
template <typename T> A;
template <short> A : public ABase
{
void func(void* t) override
{
auto value = *static_cast<short*>(t);
// do processing
}
template <float> A : public ABase
{
void func(void* t) override
{
auto value = *static_cast<float*>(t);
// do processing
}
CPP: used a map of ABase* for all the template class, and use a virtual func for all template interface
main()
{
map<int, ABase*> objs;
objs.insert({0, new A<short>()});
objs.insert({1, new A<float>()});
auto value=0;
objs[0]->func(&value);
auto value1=0.f;
objs[1]->func(&value1);
}
If you really need to have multiple types in a single map, you can use a map of std::variant. But as already mentioned in the comments, this might be a design problem.
But if you need it, you can proceed with the std::map< int, std::variant<>>. Later on, if you want to access the stored element, you have to call std::visit to pick the element which is stored in std::variant.
See the following example:
template < typename T >
struct A
{
};
// spezialize if needed, here only for demonstration purpose
template <> struct A<short> { void func(short parm) { std::cout << "A<short> with " << parm << std::endl; } };
template <> struct A<float> { void func(float parm) { std::cout << "A<float> with " << parm << std::endl; } };
class B
{
std::map<int, std::variant<A<short>*, A<float>*>> a;
public:
void AddA(int key, int type)
{
if (type == 1)
{
a.insert({ key, new A<short>() });
}
else
{
a.insert({ key, new A<float>() });
}
}
template<typename T>
void func(int key, T v)
{
std::visit( [&v]( auto ptr ) { ptr->func(v); }, a[key] );
}
};
int main()
{
B b;
b.AddA( 1, 1 );
b.AddA( 2, 2 );
b.func( 1, 99 );
b.func( 2, 100 );
}
You can't achieve the problem with templates. Template declaration is only a blueprint for a type candidate.
"A<short>" is the type not "A" itself.
You can achieve your problem through inheritance.
Edit: Code is updated according to #MSalters' comment. Thanks.
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
class A
{
public:
virtual void func(void* x) = 0;
};
class A_Short : public A
{
public:
void func(void* x)
{
short* value = static_cast<short*>(x);
std::cout << "short value: " << *value << std::endl;
}
};
class A_Float : public A
{
public:
void func(void* x)
{
float* value = static_cast<float*>(x);
std::cout << "float value: " << *value << std::endl;
}
};
template<typename T>
class A_Derived : public A
{
public:
void func(void* x)
{
T* value = static_cast<T*>(x);
std::cout << "[Derived] value: " << *value << std::endl;
}
};
class B
{
std::map<int, A*> a; /* how to declare a */
public:
void AddA(int key, int type)
{
if (type == 1)
{
a.insert({ key, new A_Short() });
}
else if(type == 2)
{
a.insert({key, new A_Derived<short>()});
}
else if(type == 3)
{
a.insert({key, new A_Derived<float>()});
}
else
{
a.insert({ key, new A_Float() });
}
}
// Assumes that user knows to use which T for any "key"
template<typename T>
void func(int key, T v)
{
a[key]->func(v);
}
};
int main()
{
B b;
b.AddA(1, 1);
b.AddA(2, 8);
b.AddA(3, 2);
b.AddA(4, 3);
short s = 1;
float f = 7.1;
short s2 = 2;
float f2 = 7.2;
b.func(1, &s);
b.func(2, &f);
b.func(3, &s2);
b.func(4, &f2);
}
Related
Here is simplified sample of problem, featuring CRTP:
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
enum ActionTypes {
eInit = 2 << 0,
eUpdate = 2 << 1,
eMultUpdate = 2 << 2
};
template <class Data,
unsigned Actions = eInit|eUpdate|eMultUpdate>
class ActionData
{
template<ActionTypes As /*???*/>
struct action {
static void exec(Data*) { std::cout << "ActionData:: /*dummy*/ exec()\n"; };
static void exec(Data*,int) { std::cout << "ActionData::/*dummy*/ exec(int)\n"; };
};
template<>
struct action < /*???*/ >
{
static void exec(Data*) { /*...*/ };
};
template<>
struct action < /*???*/ >
{
static void exec(Data*, int) { /*...*/ };
};
Data* derived() { return static_cast<Data*>(this); }
protected:
void init() { action<eInit>::exec(derived()); }
void update() { action<eUpdate>::exec(derived()); }
void update(int key) { action<eMultUpdate>::exec(derived()); }
public:
enum Keys { DEFAULT_KEY = -1 };
void call(ActionTypes a, int key = DEFAULT_KEY)
{
switch (a) {
case eInit:
init(); break;
case eUpdate:
if (key == DEFAULT_KEY)
update();
else
case eMultUpdate:
update(key);
}
}
};
class Test : public ActionData<Test, eUpdate>
{
public:
void update() { std::cout << "Test :: update()\n"; }
};
int main()
{
Test actor;
ActionTypes a = eInit;
actor.call(a, 0); // useless here but must be possible.
actor.call(eUpdate, 0);
actor.call(eUpdate);
}
Essentially not all derived classes may implement all handlers, a enum is used to declare that and a dummy version of handler must be called. The problem is that it's not possible to select any implementation but default one using enum and enable_if alone, it requires a non-type parameter, which stupefied me.
PS. Another problem is target platform is limited to C++98\C++03 or tr1 C++11 (no variadic templates). The awkward interface is a legacy of dynamic (but not used as such) polymorphic architecture using function pointers in a big C (not C++!) project. Necessity of pointers or vtable made system unstable to programmer errors leading to vtable being overwritten.
I didn't realize that I should use a partial specialization for all cases including where there is no match:
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
enum ActionTypes {
eInit = 2 << 0,
eUpdate = 2 << 1,
eMultUpdate = 2 << 2
};
template <class Data,
unsigned Actions = eInit|eUpdate|eMultUpdate>
class ActionData
{
// Never gets selected
template<ActionTypes A, typename Enable = void > struct action {};
template< ActionTypes A >
struct action<A, typename std::enable_if<(A & Actions) == 0>::type >
{
static void exec(Data*) { std::cout << "ActionData:: /*dummy*/ exec()\n"; };
static void exec(Data*,int) { std::cout << "ActionData::/*dummy*/ exec(int)\n"; };
};
template< ActionTypes A >
struct action < A, typename std::enable_if<(A & Actions) == eInit>::type >
{
static void exec(Data* o) { o->Data::init(); };
};
template< ActionTypes A >
struct action < A, typename std::enable_if<(A & Actions) == eUpdate>::type >
{
static void exec(Data* o) { o->Data::update(); };
};
template< ActionTypes A >
struct action < A, typename std::enable_if<(A & Actions) == eMultUpdate>::type >
{
static void exec(Data* o, int key) { o->Data::update(key); };
};
Data* derived() { return static_cast<Data*>(this); }
protected:
void init() { action<eInit>::exec(derived()); }
void update() { action<eUpdate>::exec(derived()); }
void update(int key) { action<eMultUpdate>::exec(derived(), key); }
public:
enum Keys { DEFAULT_KEY };
void call(ActionTypes a, int key = DEFAULT_KEY)
{
switch (a) {
case eInit:
init(); break;
case eUpdate:
if (key == DEFAULT_KEY) {
update();
break;
} else {
case eMultUpdate:
update(key);
break;
};
}
}
};
class Test : public ActionData<Test, eUpdate>
{
public:
void update() { std::cout << "Test :: update()\n"; }
};
int main()
{
Test actor;
ActionTypes a = eInit;
actor.call(a, 0);
actor.call(eUpdate);
actor.call(eMultUpdate, 0);
}
#include <iostream>
struct object1 {
object1(int v) : type(1), value(v) {}
int type;
int value;
};
struct object2 {
object2(int v) : type(2), value(v) {}
int type;
int value;
};
template <typename HeaderType>
void foo(HeaderType * hdr) {
std::cout << "foo called with type " << hdr->type << " and value " << hdr->value << std::endl;
}
// this function doesn't work
template <typename HandlerType>
void dispatch(int type, int val, HandlerType handler) {
if (type == 1) {
object1 h(val);
handler(&h);
} else {
object2 h(val);
handler(&h);
}
}
int main() {
int type = 1;
int val = 1;
// this part works
if (type == 1) {
object1 h(val);
foo(&h);
} else {
object2 h(val);
foo(&h);
}
// trying to replicate the above behavior in a more abstract way,
// ideally via a function call of the following sort
//
// dispatch(type, val, ..foo..? );
}
The above program takes an input value, uses it to decide what type of object to create, then calls a function foo with a pointer to that object.
Question: Is it possible to create this sort of abstraction where the caller of dispatch doesn't know the exact types that foo will be called with but the dispatch function doesn't know the specific function that is going to be called?
With
template <typename HandlerType>
void dispatch(int type, int val, HandlerType handler) {
if (type == 1) {
object1 h1(val);
handler(&h1);
} else {
object2 h2(val);
handler(&h2);
}
}
All branches should be valid, so handler(&h1) and handler(&h2) should be valid calls.
For that, handler may be a generic lambda (since C++14) as suggested in comment:
dispatch(type, val, [](auto a) {return foo(a);} );
or you may create your own functor:
struct foo_caller
{
template <typename HeaderType>
void operator () (const HeaderType* hdr) const {
std::cout << "foo called with type " << hdr->type << " and value " << hdr->value << std::endl;
}
};
And then call it:
dispatch(type, val, foo_caller());
Is there anyways to fusion::for_each() to iterate through a1 and a2 in a BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_ADT or BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_ASSOC_ADT, just like if adapted using BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_STRUCT?
class A
{
private:
int a1_;
double a2_;
public:
void set_a1(int v) { a1_ = v; }
int get_a1() const { return a1_; }
void set_a2(double v) { a2_ = v; }
double get_a2() const { return a2_; }
};
BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_ASSOC_ADT(
A,
(int, int, obj.get_a1(), obj.set_a1(val) )
(double, double, obj.get_a2(), obj.set_a2(val) )
)
struct Print
{
template <typename T>
void operator()( T& t ) const
{
// T is of type adt_attribute_proxy
// cout << ??
// would like to print a1 and a2 value
}
};
int main()
{
A a;
boost::fusion::for_each( a, Print() );
}
adt_attribute_proxy provides method get to access attribute value.
struct Print
{
template <typename T>
void operator()(T& t) const
{
std::cout << t.get();
}
};
P.S. There are errors in you sample BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_ASSOC_ADT macro. Each element should be declared with 5 params (attribute_typeN, attribute_const_typeN, get_exprN, set_exprN, key_typeN) Maybe you mix up BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_ASSOC_ADT with BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_ADT?
I know the problem in the following code, but not sure about the solution.
As the templatized parameter is MOD, in the function 'func' it is expecting MOD to be of same type for both the calle class and the class pointer passed as parameter.
template <class MOD>
class Test {
public:
void func(Test<MOD>* _ptr);
Test(MOD* _m, int _val);
int ival;
private:
MOD* _mod;
};
template <class MOD>
Test<MOD>::Test(MOD* _m, int _val) {
_mod = _m;
ival = _val;
}
template <class MOD>
void Test<MOD>::func(Test<MOD>* _ptr) {
if(ival == _ptr->ival)
std::cout << "Equal values " << std::endl;
else
std::cout << "Unequal values " << std::endl;
}
class T1 {
public:
Test<T1>* _test1;
T1() : _test1(NULL) {
_test1 = new Test<T1>(this, 4);
}
~T1() {
delete _test1; _test1 = NULL;
}
};
class T2 {
public:
public:
Test<T2>* _test2;
T2() : _test2 (NULL) {
_test2 = new Test<T2>(this, 5);
}
~T2() {
delete _test2; _test2 = NULL;
}
};
int main() {
T1 t1;
T2 t2;
t1._test1->func(t2._test2);
return 0;
}
How can i solve this ?
You need this
template <class MOD>
class Test {
public:
template<class T> void func(Test<T>* _ptr);
Test(MOD* _m, int _val);
int ival;
private:
MOD* _mod;
};
template <class MOD>
template <class T>
void Test<MOD>::func(Test<T>* _ptr) {
if(ival == _ptr->ival)
std::cout << "Equal values " << std::endl;
else
std::cout << "Unequal values " << std::endl;
}
func should be a template method inside a template class.
My use is pretty complicated. I have a bunch of objs and they are all passed around by ptr (not reference or value unless its an enum which is byval). At a specific point in time i like to call CheckMembers() which will check if each member has been set or is null. By default i cant make it all null because i wouldnt know if i set it to null or if it is still null bc i havent touch it since the ctor.
To assign a variable i still need the syntax to be the normal var = p; var->member = new Type;. I generate all the classes/members. So my question is how can i implement a property like feature where i can detect if the value has been set or left as the default?
I am thinking maybe i can use C++ with CLR/.NET http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z974bes2.aspx but i never used it before and have no idea how well it will work and what might break in my C++ prj (it uses rtti, templates, etc).
Reality (edit): this proved to be tricky, but the following code should handle your requirements. It uses a simple counter in the base class. The counter is incremented once for every property you wish to track, and then decremented once for every property that is set. The checkMembers() function only has to verify that the counter is equal to zero. As a bonus, you could potentially report how many members were not initialized.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class PropertyBase
{
public:
int * counter;
bool is_set;
};
template <typename T>
class Property : public PropertyBase
{
public:
T* ptr;
T* operator=(T* src)
{
ptr = src;
if (!is_set) { (*counter)--; is_set = true; }
return ptr;
}
T* operator->() { return ptr; }
~Property() { delete ptr; }
};
class Base
{
private:
int counter;
protected:
void TrackProperty(PropertyBase& p)
{
p.counter = &counter;
counter++;
}
public:
bool checkMembers() { return (counter == 0); }
};
class OtherObject : public Base { }; // just as an example
class MyObject : public Base
{
public:
Property<OtherObject> x;
Property<OtherObject> y;
MyObject();
};
MyObject::MyObject()
{
TrackProperty(x);
TrackProperty(y);
}
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
MyObject * object1 = new MyObject();
MyObject * object2 = new MyObject();
object1->x = new OtherObject();
object1->y = new OtherObject();
cout << object1->checkMembers() << endl; // true
cout << object2->checkMembers() << endl; // false
delete object1;
delete object2;
return 0;
}
There are a number of ways to do this, with varying tradeoffs in terms of space overhead. For example, here's one option:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T, typename OuterClass>
class Property
{
public:
typedef void (OuterClass::*setter)(const T &value);
typedef T &value_type;
typedef const T &const_type;
private:
setter set_;
T &ref_;
OuterClass *parent_;
public:
operator value_type() { return ref_; }
operator const_type() const { return ref_; }
Property<T, OuterClass> &operator=(const T &value)
{
(parent_->*set_)(value);
return *this;
}
Property(T &ref, OuterClass *parent, setter setfunc)
: set_(setfunc), ref_(ref), parent_(parent)
{ }
};
struct demo {
private:
int val_p;
void set_val(const int &newval) {
std::cout << "New value: " << newval << std::endl;
val_p = newval;
}
public:
Property<int, demo> val;
demo()
: val(val_p, this, &demo::set_val)
{ }
};
int main() {
demo d;
d.val = 42;
std::cout << "Value is: " << d.val << std::endl;
return 0;
}
It's possible to get less overhead (this has up to 4 * sizeof(void*) bytes overhead) using template accessors - here's another example:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T, typename ParentType, typename AccessTraits>
class Property
{
private:
ParentType *get_parent()
{
return (ParentType *)((char *)this - AccessTraits::get_offset());
}
public:
operator T &() { return AccessTraits::get(get_parent()); }
operator T() { return AccessTraits::get(get_parent()); }
operator const T &() { return AccessTraits::get(get_parent()); }
Property &operator =(const T &value) {
AccessTraits::set(get_parent(), value);
return *this;
}
};
#define DECL_PROPERTY(ClassName, ValueType, MemberName, TraitsName) \
struct MemberName##__Detail : public TraitsName { \
static ptrdiff_t get_offset() { return offsetof(ClassName, MemberName); }; \
}; \
Property<ValueType, ClassName, MemberName##__Detail> MemberName;
struct demo {
private:
int val_;
struct AccessTraits {
static int get(demo *parent) {
return parent->val_;
}
static void set(demo *parent, int newval) {
std::cout << "New value: " << newval << std::endl;
parent->val_ = newval;
}
};
public:
DECL_PROPERTY(demo, int, val, AccessTraits)
demo()
{ val_ = 0; }
};
int main() {
demo d;
d.val = 42;
std::cout << "Value is: " << (int)d.val << std::endl;
return 0;
}
This only consumes one byte for the property struct itself; however, it relies on unportable offsetof() behavior (you're not technically allowed to use it on non-POD structures). For a more portable approach, you could stash just the this pointer of the parent class in a member variable.
Note that both classes are just barely enough to demonstrate the technique - you'll want to overload operator* and operator->, etc, as well.
Here's my temporary alternative. One that doesn't ask for constructor parameters.
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
using namespace std;
template <class T>
class Property
{
bool isSet;
T v;
Property(Property&p) { }
public:
Property() { isSet=0; }
T operator=(T src) { v = src; isSet = 1; return v; }
operator T() const { assert(isSet); return v; }
bool is_set() { return isSet; }
};
class SomeType {};
enum SomeType2 { none, a, b};
class MyObject
{
public:
Property<SomeType*> x;
Property<SomeType2> y;
//This should be generated. //Consider generating ((T)x)->checkMembers() when type is a pointer
bool checkMembers() { return x.is_set() && y.is_set(); }
};
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
MyObject* p = new MyObject();
p->x = new SomeType;
cout << p->checkMembers() << endl; // false
p->y = a;
cout << p->checkMembers() << endl; // true
delete p->x;
delete p;
}