Please refer to the following:
struct functorOverloaded
{
void operator()(const int& in_, ...) const {}
void operator()(short in_) {}
};
// helper to resolve pointer to overloaded function
template <typename C, typename... OverloadArgs>
auto resolve_overload(
std::invoke_result_t<C, OverloadArgs...> (C::* func)(OverloadArgs..., ...) const
)
{ return func; };
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
using C = const functorOverloaded;
// works with exact function type
using myT = decltype(resolve_overload<C, const int&>(&C::operator()));
// can call with something convertible to const int&
static_assert(std::is_invocable_v<C,int>, "!!!");
// how to get the pointer to the overload that would be called when passed int (or double)?
// the next line doesn't compile (error C2672: 'resolve_overload': no matching overloaded function found)
using myT2 = decltype(resolve_overload<C, int>(&C::operator()));
return 0;
}
The above code allows retrieving a pointer to a specific overload of a function (operator() in this case), see here. One must know the exact argument type (const int&) in this case to get the pointer, even though i can just call the specific overload with a plain int, or even double. Is it possible to get a pointer to the overload that would be called with the specific argument (assuming the call is resolvable / not ambiguous)?
Edit: adding context:
I am writing a invocable_traits library for introspecting a callable. E.g., given a Callable, it will tell you the return type, arity and argument types, amongst some other properties. To support functors (including lambdas) with overloaded (or templated) operator(), the API of invocable_traits allows specifying call arguments to disambiguate which overload is to be used (or to instantiate the template). However, one must know the exact argument type (const int& in the example above), simply specifying int won't do in that case as there is no function with signature R operator()(int). Ideally, I'd like to allow discovering the signature of the exact overload/instantiation that gets called given the provided input argument types, ideally even taking into account any implicit conversions that are applied. Is this possible?
There is no way to get the function of an overload-set which would be called with the given arguments, unless you already know its signature.
And if you know, what's the point?
The problem is that for any given arguments, taking into account implicit conversions, references, cv-qualifiers, noexcept, old-style vararg, default arguments, and maybe also literal 0 being a null pointer constant, there are an infinite number of function-signatures which would match. And there is currently no facility for "just" listing all candidates.
Related
The title is a bit lengthy, but it's best explained by an example:
Suppose we have the following functions in C++:
void SomeFunction(int num) { //1
}
void SomeFunction(int& num) { //2
}
void SomeFunction(const int& num) { //3
}
void SomeFunction(const int num) { //4
}
All of these are called the same way:
SomeFunction(5);
or
int x = 5;
SomeFunction(x);
When I tried to compile the code, it rightfully says more than one instance of overloaded function "SomeFunction" matches the argument
My question is: Is there a way to tell the compiler which function I meant to call?
I asked my lecturer if it was possible, and she tried something along
SomeFunction< /*some text which I don't remember*/ >(x);
But it didn't work and she asked me to find out and tell her.
I also encounter this post:
How to define two functions with the same name and parameters, if one of them has a reference?
And it seems that 1 and 2 can't be written together, but what about 3 and 4? Can either one of those be called specifically?
1 and 4 have the same signature, so you'll need to drop one of those.
The other functions cannot be called directly, but you could add a template function that allows you to specify the desired parameter type:
template<class Arg>
void Call(void f(Arg), Arg arg)
{
f(arg);
}
// Driver Program to test above functions
int main()
{
int i;
Call<int>(SomeFunction, 1);
Call<int&>(SomeFunction, i);
Call<const int&>(SomeFunction, 1);
}
Alternatively you could use a function pointer to choose the signature.
int i;
static_cast<void(*)(int)>(&SomeFunction)(1);
static_cast<void(*)(int&)>(&SomeFunction)(i);
static_cast<void(*)(const int&)>(&SomeFunction)(1);
It would be preferrable to avoid this scenario though and only define overloads for either references or the signature void SomeFunction(int).
Note:
SomeFunction<some text which I don't remember>(x);
only works for template functions and SomeFunction is not a template function, so this is not an option here.
You can HACK it, and I mean it - it's not a good solution to your problem, by static casting your function explicitly:
static_cast<void(*)(int)>(SomeFunction)(i);
static_cast<void(*)(int&)>(SomeFunction)(i);
static_cast<void(*)(const int&)>(SomeFunction)(i);
Demo
It will work for first 3 overloads. 4th one is equivalent to 1st: quote from the standard [over.load]:
Parameter declarations that differ only in the presence or absence of const and/or volatile are
equivalent. That is, the const and volatile type-specifiers for each parameter type are ignored when
determining which function is being declared, defined, or called
and there is an example:
int f (int);
int f (const int); // redeclaration of f(int)
Also note that you cannot call 2nd overload with rvalue (temporary).
The only way I see this working the way your lecturer tried is if SomeFunction is a template and these four overloads are specializations.
template<typename T>
void SomeFunction(T num);
template<>
void SomeFunction<int>(int num) {}
template<>
void SomeFunction<int&>(int& num) {}
template<>
void SomeFunction<const int&>(const int& num) {}
template<>
void SomeFunction<const int>(const int num) {}
Then you can call it as follows.
SomeFunction<int>(x);
SomeFunction<int&>(x);
SomeFunction<const int&>(x);
SomeFunction<const int>(x);
Demo
However, this is incredibly stupid in this context. There are a lot of things wrong with the original overloads.
In the 4th one, the const is completely useless from the caller's perspective, because you can call it the same way you can call the 1st, and the argument is a copy anyway. The const only makes it so the argument is constant inside the function. Moreover, the 1st and 4th overloads cannot both be defined at the same time: the const is actually ignored in the prototype and it leads to a redefinition.
The 3rd overload is also useless because a const int& argument provides no benefit over a int argument. In fact, the compiler probably optimizes that away. The only difference is in the scenario I describe at the end. Of course, if the argument type is more complex (not just int or some other fundamental type), it often makes sense.
The 2nd overload is the only one that can modify the variable you pass as argument. However, if the 1st (or 4th, since it's really the same) overload is present as well, you cannot call the 2nd directly because the call would be ambiguous. You could still call the 1st with an rvalue (basically a literal or an expression like std::move(x)).
If the 2nd and 3rd overloads are the only ones present, then there is no ambiguity and you can call the 2nd with non-const lvalues and the 3rd with const lvalues or rvalues.
Demo
I have this example about std::function:
int add(int x, int y, int z) {return x + y + z;}
int add(int a, int b) {return a + b;}
int main()
{
std::function<int(int, int)> fn = add; // error
int(*pfn)(int, int) = add; // OK
fn = pfn; // ok fn is bound to add(int, int)
std::cout << fn(5, 7) << std::endl; // 12
}
Why Overload resolution doesn't resolve which version of add when initializing fn but is able to initialize the function pointer pfn?
Is there a workaround rather than using function pointer to decide which version of an overloaded function as an initializer to an std::function object?
Why Overload resolution doesn't resolve which version of add when initializing fn but is able to initialize the function pointer pfn?
Because overload resolution is performed in the initialization of function pointer (like pfn), based on the type of the function pointer.
In all these contexts, the function selected from the overload set is the function whose type matches the pointer to function, reference to function, or pointer to member function type that is expected by target: the object or reference being initialized, the left-hand side of the assignment, function or operator parameter, the return type of a function, the target type of a cast, or the type of the template parameter, respectively.
On the other hand, such overload resolution doesn't happen when initializing a std::function, which has a constructor template and the template parameter needs to be deduced from the function argument; the compiler can't choose one for the deduction.
As the workaround, you can apply static_cast to specify the overload you want explicitly.
static_cast may also be used to disambiguate function overloads by performing a function-to-pointer conversion to specific type
std::function<int(int, int)> fn = static_cast<int(*)(int, int)>(add);
For the function pointer case, C++ has a special rule that permits a sort of "time travelling" lookup. It can perform overload resolution on a name, based on what you're going to assign/initialise the name to.
This is basically a hack built into the language (rules in [over.over]).
No other part of the language works this way. For example, where newcomers often expect that after writing float x = 1/2 the value of x will be 0.5, we have to explain that the fact you're initialising a float has no relevance to the types or calculation of the expression 1/2.
This hack was not extended to std::function. Presumably that is because adding hacks is bad, and because it is not needed for this case. Why not? Because you can still deploy the hack indirectly with a static_cast on the RHS of your std::function initialisation:
std::function<int(int, int)> fn = static_cast<int(*)(int, int)>(add);
… and there's your workaround.
I'm trying to write a generic wrapper (for some script interpreter) for function/class method that would convert all call parameters from string to some arbitrary type T.
I'll try to cover topic in points:
Script allows to map user function
When interpreter tries to process user function - a callback routine is made
Callback is intended to take array of objects that describe (one-by-one) arguments' values
I already got (template) routines that converts string to arbitrary (basic) type T
I would like to wrap user routine (provided externally as variadic std::function<> type) so that conversion from subsequent strings from callback's array to appropriate argument is done automatically
Example:
Prototype for callback routine is as follows:
int CallbackFn(Interp *interp, int argc, const char **argv)
I got (sample) user function:
int UserRoutine(const std::string &in_str, int x);
so std::function would look like:
std::function<int(const std::string&, int)>
Generic conversion routine has syntax:
template <typename T>
T conv(const char *str);
I have specializations that convert:
"const char*" to "std::string"
"const char*" to "int"
so that ideally conversion would look like:
std::string p0 = conv<std::string>(argv[0]);
int p1 = conv<int>(argv[1]);
It could be wrapped all into variadic templates, but std::function<...> arguments do not exactly match the types i'm preparing - e.g. it is very common to pass objects as const T&, while i need to create "pure" type of T.
Any ideas how to handle different means of passing arguments?
The first problem is that you are reinventing the wheel, to be honest. The default conversion function is operator>> (istream&, T&). Stuff each argument in a std::stringstream. And obviously, operator<< for the return type.
As you correctly note, you use variadic templates. But I wouldn't bother with generating std::function<int(const std::string&, int)> here. Instead, you always generate the common type std::function<std::string(std::string)>. Each packaged function contains the right argument conversion.
This gives us the declaration
template<typename RET, typename Args...>
std::function<std::string(std::string) (RET (*fptr)(Args...));
The body roughly has to look roughly like
std::tuple<Args...> args;
std::istringstream iss(fromScript);
iss>>args;
std::ostringstream oss;
oss << *fptr(args.get<0>, args.get<1>(), ...);
return oss.str();
For that tricky call to *fptr, see C++11: I can go from multiple args to tuple, but can I go from tuple to multiple args?
[edit]
I just noted one bit I missed: " arguments do not exactly match the types i'm preparing - e.g. it is very common to pass objects as const T&, while i need to create "pure" type of T.". I suspect you're looking for std::decay<Arg>.
From C++ Primer, I know that for template's parameter arguments, only two kinds of conversions are performed: one is const conversion, another one is array/function to pointer conversion.
However, when it comes to explicit argument, it seems that everything changes.
Assume we have a template function:
template <typename T>
int compare(const T &a, const T &b)
{
// do comparison
}
If no explicit argument involved, function call like this is illegal:
compare("foo", "foobar");
The weird thing happens (actually, it might not be weird but I do not understand) when we explicitly do:
compare<std::string>("foo", "foobar");
It seems that in the second call, "foo" and "foobar" are converted to std::string, which is controversial.
Is there any special rules for template explicit arguments? Thanks.
In the first case the compiler tries to deduce the type T from the given parameters. From the first parameter the compiler deduces the type const char (&)[4] (aka. reference to an array of 4 characters), from the second it gets const char (&)[7]. The two types don't match and the compiler can't figure out what T should be.
In the second example you explicitly specify that the T template parameter should be std::string. So T will be std::string. The compiler accepts the type you give and checks if the given function parameters match that type. In this case the parameters fit, because "foo" and "foobar" can be implicitly converted to std::string. (The const char[] degrade to const char*, and then there is a constructor that can construct a std::string from a const char*)
I'm trying to write predicate function for use with STL algorithms. I see that they are two ways to define a predicate:
(1) Use a simple function as below:
bool isEven(unsigned int i) { return (i % 2 == 0); }
std::find_if(itBegin, itEnd, isEven);
(2) Use the operator() function as below:
class checker {
public:
bool operator()(unsigned int i) { return (i % 2 == 0); }
};
std::find_if(itBegin, itEnd, checker);
I have more use for the second type as I usually would like to create a predicate object with some members in it and use them in the algorithm. When I add the same isEven function inside checker and use it as a predicate, I get an error:
3. Syntax which gives error:
class checker {
public:
bool isEven(unsigned int i)
{ return (i%2 == 0); }
};
checker c;
std::find_if(itBegin, itEnd, c.isEven);
Calling c.isEven gives an error during compilation saying undefined reference to some function. Can someone explain why 3. is giving error? Also, I would appreciate any pointers to read about predicate and iterator basics.
A pointer to a member function requires an instance to be called on, and you are passing only the member function pointer to std::find_if (actually your syntax is incorrect, so it doesn't work at all; the correct syntax is std::find_if(itBegin, itEnd, &checker::isEven) which then still doesn't work for the reasons I gave).
The find_if function expects to be able to call the function using a single parameter (the object to test), but it actually needs two to call a member function: the instance this pointer and the object to compare.
Overloading operator() allows you to pass both the instance and the function object at the same time, because they're now the same thing. With a member function pointer you must pass two pieces of information to a function that expects only one.
There is a way to do this using std::bind (which requires the <functional> header):
checker c;
std::find_if(itBegin, itEnd, std::bind(&checker::isEven, &c, std::placeholders::_1));
If your compiler doesn't support std::bind, you can also use boost::bind for this. Though there's no real advantage to doing this over just overloading operator().
To elaborate a bit more, std::find_if expects a function pointer matching the signature bool (*pred)(unsigned int) or something that behaves that way. It doesn't actually need to be a function pointer, because the type of the predicate is bound by the template. Anything that behaves like a bool (*pred)(unsigned int) is acceptable, which is why functors work: they can be called with a single parameter and return a bool.
As others have pointed out, the type of checker::isEven is bool (checker::*pred)(unsigned int) which doesn't behave like the original function pointer, because it needs an instance of checker to be called on.
A pointer to a member function can be conceptually considered as a regular function pointer that takes an additional argument, the this pointer (e.g. bool (*pred)(checker*, unsigned int)). You can actually generate a wrapper that can be called that way using std::mem_fn(&checker::isEven) (also from <functional>). That still doesn't help you, because now you have a function object that must be called with two parameters rather than only one, which std::find_if still doesn't like.
Using std::bind treats the pointer to a member function as if it was a function taking the this pointer as its first argument. The arguments passed to std::bind specify that the first argument should always be &c, and the second argument should bind to the first argument of the newly returned function object. This function object is a wrapper that can be called with one argument, and can therefore be used with std::find_if.
Although the return type of std::bind is unspecified, you can convert it to a std::function<bool(unsigned int)> (in this particular case) if you need to refer to the bound function object explicitly rather than passing it straight to another function like I did in my example.
I guess it's because the type of c.isEven() is,
bool (checker::*)(unsigned int) // member function of class
which may not be expected by find_if(). std::find_if should be expecting either a function pointer (bool (*)(unsigned int)) or a function object.
Edit: Another constraint: A non-static member function pointer must be called by the class object. In your case, even if you succeed to pass the member function then still find_if() will not have any information about any checker object; so it doesn't make sense to have find_if() overloaded for accepting a member function pointer argument.
Note: In general c.isEven is not the right way to pass member function pointer; it should be passed as, &checker::isEven.
checker::isEven is not a function; it is a member function. And you cannot call a non-static member function without a reference to a checker object. So you can't just use a member function in any old place that you could pass a function pointer. Member pointers have special syntax that requires more than just () to call.
That's why functors use operator(); this makes the object callable without having to use a member function pointer.
I prefer functors (function objects) because make your program more readable and, more importantly, expressing the intent clearly.
This is my favorite example:
template <typename N>
struct multiplies
{
N operator() (const N& x, const N& y) { return x * y; }
};
vector<int> nums{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
// Example accumulate with transparent operator functor
double result = accumulate(cbegin(nums), cend(nums), 1.1, multiplies<>());
Note: In recent years we've got a lambda expression support.
// Same example with lambda expression
double result = accumulate(cbegin(nums), cend(nums), 1.1,
[](double x, double y) { return x * y; });
The example given says you should use the call operator (operator()) whereas in your example you've called your function isEven. Try re-writing it as:
class checker {
public:
bool operator()(unsigned int i)
{ return (i%2 == 0); }
};