How to specialize a function using enum - c++

I'm trying to refactor some code. Basically is a state machine based with enum.
There are a lot of switch statements and functions that got called with different names and ambiguations.
Since they force me to keep the enum, I would like to refactor it using template. Basically I would like to use template to implement polymorphism. Since the states are limited there should be a way but I cannot find the best one.
#include <iostream>
enum class AnimalType
{
Dog,
Cat
};
template<AnimalType T>
void Foo()
{
std::cout << "Unknown animal\n";
}
template<>
void Foo<AnimalType::Dog>()
{
std::cout << "I'm a dog\n";
}
template<>
void Foo<AnimalType::Cat>()
{
std::cout << "I'm a cat\n";
}
int main()
{
AnimalType CurrentAnimal = AnimalType::Dog;
// Foo<CurrentAnimal>(); Won't compile
return 0;
}

You need a compile time evaluatable constant, this will work
int main()
{
constexpr auto CurrentAnimal = AnimalType::Dog;
Foo<CurrentAnimal>();
return 0;
}
or directly use
Foo<AnimalType::Dog>();
Note : you can't use your construct to make decissions at runtime.
Templates only lead to compile time polymorphism

As mentioned by #P Kramer's answer:
Note : you can't use your construct to make decissions at runtime. Templates only lead to compile time polymorphism.
You can't do that, but you can use the Compile-Time Dispatch and runtime parameter by passing the desired value as parameter while they are separated by Function Template Specialization. For example turn your enumerations value into actual types:
struct animal_t
{
std::string const name;
explicit animal_t(std::string const& name_)
: name(name_)
{
}
auto operator()() const
{
return name;
}
};
struct dog_t final : animal_t
{
using animal_t::animal_t;
};
struct cat_t final : animal_t
{
using animal_t::animal_t;
};
They you are able to specialize the function template:
/*!
*
* Other Programmer(s) interface
*
*/
template<typename Animal>
auto function(Animal const&)
{
assert(false);
}
/*!
*
* Implementation
*
*/
template<>
auto function(cat_t const& animal)
{
return animal();
}
template<>
auto function(dog_t const& animal)
{
return animal();
}
Now user (other programmer) of your library could easily interact with it for example by a GUI library:
QObject::connect(button1, &QPushButton::clicked, &application, [] {
cat_t cat("Some Cat");
auto const message = QString::fromStdString(function(cat));
QMessageBox::information(nullptr, " ", message);
});
QObject::connect(button2, &QPushButton::clicked, &application, [] {
dog_t dog("Some Dog");
auto const message = QString::fromStdString(function(dog));
QMessageBox::information(nullptr, " ", message);
});
Result: just for copy/past: runtime_dispatch_v1

Related

creating type vector in c++

I have several classes that each of them has an ID and the Id is passed to the class as a template parameter:
typedef class1<1> baseClass;
typedef class2<2> baseClass;
typedef class<100> baseClass;
Now I need a map so if I can associate 1 with Class1 and 2 with Class2 and so on.
How can I create such vector? I am working on a header only library, so it should be a header only definition.
I am looking something that do the same thing that this code would do (if someone can compile it!):
std::map<int,Type> getMap()
{
std::map<int,Type> output;
output.add(1,class1);
output.add(2,class2);
output.add(100,class100);
}
The idea is that when I get as input 1, I create a class1 and when I receive 2, I create class2.
Any suggestion is very appreciated.
using this data, then I can write a function like this:
void consume(class1 c)
{
// do something interesting with c
}
void consume(class2 c)
{
// do something interesting with c
}
void consume(class3 c)
{
// do something interesting with c
}
void consume(int id,void * buffer)
{
auto map=getMap();
auto data= new map[id](buffer); // assuming that this line create a class based on map, so the map provide the type that it should be created and then this line create that class and pass buffer to it.
consume(data);
}
As a sketch:
class BaseClass { virtual ~BaseClass() = default; };
template<std::size_t I>
class SubClass : public BaseClass {};
namespace detail {
template<std::size_t I>
std::unique_ptr<BaseClass> makeSubClass() { return { new SubClass<I> }; }
template<std::size_t... Is>
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<BaseClass>(*)> makeFactory(std::index_sequence<Is...>)
{ return { makeSubclass<Is>... }; }
}
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<BaseClass>(*)> factory = detail::makeFactory(std::make_index_sequence<100>{});
We populate the vector by expanding a parameter pack, so we don't have to write out all 100 instantiations by hand. This gives you Subclass<0> at factory[0], Subclass<1> at factory[1], etc. up to Subclass<99> at factory[99].
If I understand correctly you want a map to create different types according to a given number.
If that is so, then the code should look something like this:
class Base
{
};
template <int number>
class Type : public Base
{
public:
Type()
{
std::cout << "type is " << number << std::endl;
}
};
using Type1 = Type<1>;
using Type2 = Type<2>;
using Type3 = Type<3>;
using CreateFunction = std::function<Base*()>;
std::map<int, CreateFunction> creators;
int main()
{
creators[1] = []() -> Base* { return new Type1(); };
creators[2] = []() -> Base* { return new Type2(); };
creators[3] = []() -> Base* { return new Type3(); };
std::vector<Base*> vector;
vector.push_back(creators[1]());
vector.push_back(creators[2]());
vector.push_back(creators[3]());
}
output:
type is 1
type is 2
type is 3
If you need only to create object, it would be enough to implement template creator function like:
template<int ID>
Base<ID> Create()
{
return Base<ID>();
}
And then use it:
auto obj1 = Create<1>();
auto obj2 = Create<2>();
// etc
Working example: https://ideone.com/urh7h6
Due to C++ being a statically-typed language, you may choose to either have arbitrary types that do a fixed set of things or have a fixed set of types do arbitrary things, but not both.
Such limitations is embodied by std::function and std::variant. std::function can have arbitrary types call operator() with a fixed signature, and std::variant can have arbitrary functions visit the fixed set of types.
Since you already said the types may be arbitrary, you may only have a fixed set of things you can do with such a type (e.g. consume). The simplest way is to delegate the hard work to std::function
struct Type
{
template<typename T>
Type(T&& t)
: f{[t = std::forward<T>(t)]() mutable { consume(t); }} {}
std::function<void()> f;
};
void consume(Type& t)
{
t.f();
}
What you are looking for is either the Stategy pattern:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
class A {
public:
A() {}
virtual void doIt() {};
};
class Aa : public A {
public:
Aa() {}
virtual void doIt() {
std::cout << "do it the Aa way" << std::endl;
}
};
class Ab : public A {
public:
Ab() {}
virtual void doIt() {
std::cout << "do it the Ab way" << std::endl;
}
};
class Concrete {
public:
Concrete(std::string const& type) {
if (type == ("Aa")) {
_a.reset(new Aa());
} else if (type == "Ab") {
_a.reset(new Ab());
}
}
void doIt () const {
_a->doIt();
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<A> _a;
};
int main() {
std::vector<Concrete> vc;
vc.push_back(Concrete("Aa"));
vc.push_back(Concrete("Ab"));
for (auto const& i : vc) {
i.doIt();
}
return 0;
}
Will output:
do it the Aa way
do it the Ab way

pass userData from callback-begin to callback-end

How to appropriately cache userData that is generated from user's callbackBegin() and send it to user's callbackEnd().
Simple version (No userData - demo)
I want to create a complex database that support callback. For MCVE, let's say it is MyArray.
Here is a simple array class that supports callback but no userData.
#include <iostream>
template<class Derived>class MyArray{ //library - I design it.
public: void push_back(int s){
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->callbackBegin(s);
//do something about array
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->callbackEnd(s);
}
//other fields / functions
};
class Callback : public MyArray<Callback>{ //user's class
public: void callbackBegin(int s){
std::cout<<"callbackBegin"<<std::endl;
}
public: void callbackEnd(int s){
std::cout<<"callbackEnd"<<std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
Callback c;
c.push_back(5); //print: callbackBegin callbackEnd
return 0;
}
It works correctly.
The next step : I want to pass some userData from Callback::callbackBegin() to Callback::callbackEnd().
For example, userData is a clock time when Callback::callbackBegin() is called.
My poor solution (void*& userdata : demo)
Here is my attempt to implement it :-
#include <iostream>
#include <time.h>
template<class Derived>class MyArray{
public: void push_back(int s){
void* userData=nullptr; //#
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->callbackBegin(s,userData); //# ugly
//do something about array
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->callbackEnd(s,userData); //# ugly
}
};
class Callback : public MyArray<Callback>{
public: void callbackBegin(int s,void*& userData){ //#
userData=new clock_t(clock()); //# danger
std::cout<<"callbackBegin"<<std::endl;
}
public: void callbackEnd(int s,void*& userData){ //#
clock_t* userDataTyped=static_cast<clock_t*>(userData);
clock_t clock2=clock();
clock_t different=clock2 - (*userDataTyped);
std::cout<<"callbackEnd time(second)="
<<((float)different)/CLOCKS_PER_SEC<<std::endl;
delete userDataTyped; //# danger
}
};
int main() {
Callback c;
c.push_back(5); //print: callbackBegin callbackEnd time(second)=8.5e-05
return 0;
}
It also works correctly, but I believe it is a bad design (at various #) :-
new/delete in 2 places : potential memory leaking.
Strong pointer is preferred, but I don't know how to.
static_cast<clock_t*>(userData) is code-smell, at least for me.
(minor issue) an extra ugly parameter void*&
Question: What are design patterns / C++ magic to avoid such issues, while make MyArray concise, easy to use, maintainable (i.e. not much worse than the Simple version)?
Other notes:
In real cases, <5% of user's callback classes need userData.
Thus, I feel very reluctant to add void&* as an extra parameter.
Clarify: (edited) The minority cases usually need different types of userData e.g. Callback1 need clock_t, Callback2 need std::string, etc.
Proposed solution should restrain from using std::function<> or virtual function, because the performance is a major concern here.
Thank.
Pass data through a void pointer is a good C solution but (IMHO) not a C++ (specially: not a C++11/c++14/C++17, with auto and std::tuple) good one.
So I suggest to return a value from callbackBegin() and pass the value as first argument to `callbackEnd(); something like
auto r = static_cast<Derived*>(this)->callbackBegin(s);
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->callbackEnd(r, s);
Observe (C++11 and newer magic) that using auto as type of the value returned by callbackBegin(), you can return different types from different `callbackBegin().
Bonus suggestion: be more generic in MyArray::push_back(): using variadic templates, there is no need of fix the number and the types of arguments received by callbackBack() and callbackEnd().
Using variadic templates you can modify push_back() as follows
template <typename ... Args>
void push_back (Args const & ... args)
{
auto r = static_cast<Derived*>(this)->callbackBegin(args...);
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->callbackEnd(r, args...);
}
The following is a full working example with two different callback classes (with different number of arguments and different return types)
#include <tuple>
#include <iostream>
template <typename derT>
struct myA
{
template <typename ... Args>
void push_back (Args const & ... args)
{
auto r = static_cast<derT*>(this)->callbackBegin(args...);
static_cast<derT*>(this)->callbackEnd(r, args...);
}
};
struct cb1 : public myA<cb1>
{
int callbackBegin (int s)
{ std::cout << "cb1 b" << std::endl; return s+5; }
void callbackEnd (int r, int s)
{ std::cout << "cb1 e -" << r << ", " << s << std::endl; }
};
struct cb2 : public myA<cb2>
{
std::tuple<std::string, int> callbackBegin (std::string const & name,
int num)
{ std::cout << "cb2 b" << std::endl; return {name+";", num+1}; }
void callbackEnd (std::tuple<std::string, int> const &,
std::string const & name, int num)
{ std::cout << "cb2 e -" << name << ", " << num << std::endl; }
};
int main ()
{
cb1 c1;
c1.push_back(5);
cb2 c2;
c2.push_back("string arg", 7);
return 0;
}
std::any would allow you to hold clock_t (or any other) object and do away with the void* pointers, however that's a C++17 concept and not yet widely available (although there are implementations such as boost::any).
In the meantime, your code may benefit from a little composition over inheritance, as array and callback are conceptually pretty different and don't seem to belong in the same inheritance hierarchy. So, preferring composition, the code might look something like:
template<class T> struct ICallback
{
virtual void callbackBegin(int s, std::unique_ptr<T>& p) = 0;
virtual void callbackEnd(int s, std::unique_ptr<T>& p) = 0;
};
template<class T> class MyArray
{
public:
MyArray(std::shared_ptr<ICallback<T>> cb) { callback = cb; }
void push_back(int s)
{
callback->callbackBegin(s, usrDataPtr);
//do something about array
callback->callbackEnd(s, usrDataPtr);
}
protected:
std::shared_ptr<ICallback<T>> callback;
std::unique_ptr<T> usrDataPtr;
};
class ClockCallback : public ICallback<clock_t>
{
public:
void callbackBegin(int s, std::unique_ptr<clock_t>& c){
c = std::make_unique<clock_t>(clock());
std::cout << "callbackBegin" << std::endl;
}
void callbackEnd(int s, std::unique_ptr<clock_t>& c){
clock_t clock2 = clock();
clock_t different = clock2 - (*c);
std::cout << "callbackEnd time(second)="
<< ((float)different) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
std::shared_ptr<ClockCallback> c = std::make_shared<ClockCallback>();
MyArray<clock_t> ma(c);
ma.push_back(7);
return 0;
}
You can use a smart pointer to avoid manually deleting your userData
std::unique_ptr<clock_t> userData;
pass it as a reference to your callbacks
void callbackBegin(int s, std::unique_ptr<clock_t> &userData)
and initialize it this way
userData = std::make_unique<clock_t>(clock())
The C++ magic you're asking about is a known as a virtual method. Virtual method is one of the C++ native ways to implement the callback:
class MyArray{
public:
void push_back(int s) {
const auto userData = callbackBegin(s); //# beautiful
//do something about array
callbackEnd(s, userData); //# beautiful
}
private:
virtual clock_t callbackBegin(int) const = 0;
virtual void callbackEnd(int, const clock_t&) const = 0;
};
class Callback : public MyArray{
clock_t callbackBegin(int s) const final {
std::cout<<"callbackBegin"<<std::endl;
return clock(); //# safe
}
void callbackEnd(int s,const clock_t& userData) const final { //#
const auto different = clock() - userDataTyped;
std::cout << "callbackEnd time(second)=";
std::cout << different/CLOCKS_PER_SEC << std::endl;
//# safe
}
};
Another way is to pass two callable objects to the MyArray ctor and using those objects in the push_back method. The callable objects shall store calls to the relevant class Callback methods. Use std::function to implement those callable objects.

How to work around C++ pointer-to-member function limitation

C++ has limited ability to use pointer-to-member functions. I need something that will allow me to dynamically choose a callback member function, in order to use the Visitor pattern of the XMLNode::Accept(XMLVisitor *visitor) method from the TinyXML2 library.
To use XMLNode::Accept(), I must call it with a class which implements the XMLVisitor interface. Hence:
typedef bool (*Callback)(string, string);
class MyVisitor : public tinyxml2::XMLVisitor {
public:
bool VisitExit(const tinyxml2::XMLElement &e) {
callback(e.Name(), e.GetText());
}
Callback callback;
}
This works fine if my caller is NOT an object which wants to use one of its own methods as a callback function (so that it can access class variables). For example, this works:
bool myCallBackFunc(string e, string v) {
cout << "Element " << e << " has value " << v << endl;
return true;
}
int main(...) {
tinyxml2::XMLDocument doc;
doc.LoadFile("somefile.xml");
MyVisitor visit;
visit.callback = myCallBackFunc;
doc.Accept(&visit);
}
However, in my use case, the parsing is done inside a method in a class. I have multiple applications which have similar but unique such classes. I'd like to use only one generic MyVisitor class, rather than have the visitor class have unique knowledge of the internals of each class which will call it.
Thus, it would be convenient if the callback function were a method in each calling class so that I can affect the internal state of the object instantiated from that calling class.
Top level: I have 5 server applications which talk to 5 different trading partners, who all send XML responses, but each is enough different that each server app has a class which is unique to that trading partner. I'm trying to follow good OO and DRY design, and avoid extra classes having unique knowledge while still doing basically the same work.
Here's the class method I want Accept() to call back.
ServiceClass::changeState(string elem, string value) {
// Logic which sets member vars based on element found and its value.
}
Here's the class method which will call Accept() to walk the XML:
ServiceClass::processResponse(string xml) {
// Parse XML and do something only if certain elements present.
tinyxml2::XMLDocument doc;
doc.Parse(xml.c_str(), xml.length());
MyVisitor visit;
visit.callback = &changeState; // ERROR. Does not work.
visit.callback = &ServiceClass::changeState; // ERROR. Does not work.
doc.Accept(&visit);
}
What's a simple way to get what I want? I can imagine more classes with derived classes unique to each situation, but that seems extremely verbose and clumsy.
Note: In the interest of brevity, my sample code above has no error checking, no null checking and may even have minor errors (e.g. treating const char * as a string ;-).
Below is the std::bind(..) example for what you're trying to do in C++11. For earlier C++ versions you could use the boost::bind utilities.
Fix your MyVisitor::VisitExit(...) method to return a boolean, by the way.
The code is converting const char * to std::string. tinyxml2 does not guarantee that the char * arguments from Name() or GetText() are not null. In fact in my experience they will be null at some point. You should guard against this. For the sake of not modifying your example too much I've not protected against this possibility everywhere in the example.
typedef bool(*Callback)(string, string);
using namespace std;
class MyVisitor : public tinyxml2::XMLVisitor {
public:
bool VisitExit(const tinyxml2::XMLElement &e) {
// return callback(e.Name(), e.GetText());
return true;
}
Callback callback;
};
/** Typedef to hopefully save on confusing syntax later */
typedef std::function< bool(const char * element_name, const char * element_text) > visitor_fn;
class MyBoundVisitor : public tinyxml2::XMLVisitor {
public:
MyBoundVisitor(visitor_fn fn) : callback(fn) {}
bool VisitExit(const tinyxml2::XMLElement &e) {
return callback(e.Name() == nullptr ? "\0" : e.Name(), e.GetText() == nullptr ? "\0": e.GetText());
}
visitor_fn callback;
};
bool
myCallBackFunc(string e, string v) {
cout << "Element " << e << " has value " << v << endl;
return true;
}
int
main()
{
tinyxml2::XMLDocument doc;
doc.LoadFile("somefile.xml");
MyVisitor visit;
visit.callback = myCallBackFunc;
doc.Accept(&visit);
visitor_fn fn = myCallBackFunc; // copy your function pointer into the std::function<> type
MyBoundVisitor visit2(fn); // note: declare this outside the Accept(..) , do not use a temporary
doc.Accept(&visit2);
}
So from within the ServiceClass method you'd do:
ServiceClass::processResponse(string xml) {
// Parse XML and do something only if certain elements present.
tinyxml2::XMLDocument doc;
doc.Parse(xml.c_str(), xml.length());
// presuming changeState(const char *, const char *) here
visitor_fn fn = std::bind(&ServiceClass::changeState,this,std::placeholders::_1,std::placeholders::_2);
MyBoundVisitor visit2(fn); // the method pointer is in the fn argument, together with the instance (*this) it is a method for.
doc.Accept(&visit);
}
You can use generics in order to support whichever callback you'd like.
I've tried to mock the classes of the library in order to give you a fully runnable example:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
class XmlNode {
public:
XmlNode(const std::string& n, const std::string t) : name(n), txt(t) {}
const std::string& Name() const { return name; }
const std::string& GetText() const { return txt; }
private:
std::string name;
std::string txt;
};
class XMLVisitor {
public:
virtual void VisitExit(const XmlNode& node) = 0;
virtual ~XMLVisitor() {}
};
template<typename T>
class MyVisitor : XMLVisitor {
public:
MyVisitor() {}
void myInnerPrint(const XmlNode& node) {
std::cout << "MyVisitor::myInnerPrint" << std::endl;
std::cout << "node.Name(): " << node.Name() << std::endl;
std::cout << "node.GetText(): " << node.GetText() << std::endl;
}
void SetCallback(T newCallback) {
callback = newCallback;
}
virtual void VisitExit(const XmlNode& node) {
callback(node);
}
T callback;
};
int main() {
XmlNode node("In", "Member");
MyVisitor<std::function<void(const XmlNode&)>> myVisitor;
auto boundCall =
[&myVisitor](const XmlNode& node) -> void {
myVisitor.myInnerPrint(node);
};
myVisitor.SetCallback(boundCall);
myVisitor.VisitExit(node);
return 0;
}
First define a template and a helper function:
namespace detail {
template<typename F>
struct xml_visitor : tinyxml2::XMLVisitor {
xml_visitor(F&& f) : f_(std::move(f)) {}
virtual void VisitExit(const tinyxml2::XMLElement &e) {
f_(e);
}
private:
F f_;
};
}
template<class F>
auto make_xml_visitor(F&& f)
{
return detail::xml_visitor<std::decay_t<F>>(std::forward<F>(f));
}
Then use the helper function to construct a custom visitor from a lambda which captures this:
void ServiceClass::processResponse(std::string xml) {
// Parse XML and do something only if certain elements present.
tinyxml2::XMLDocument doc;
doc.Parse(xml.c_str(), xml.length());
auto visit = make_xml_visitor([this](const auto& elem)
{
this->changeState(elem.Name(), elem.GetText);
});
doc.Accept(std::addressof(visit));
}
The rule is that a function pointer must always accept a void * which is passed in to the module which calls it, and passed back. Or use a lambda which is the same thing with some of the machinery automated for you. (The void * is the "closure").
So
typedef bool (*Callback)(string, string, void *context);
class MyVisitor : public tinyxml2::XMLVisitor {
public:
bool VisitExit(const tinyxml2::XMLElement &e) {
callback(e.Name(), e.GetText(), contextptr);
}
Callback callback;
void *contextptr;
}
bool myCallBackFunc(string e, string v, void *context) {
ServiceClass *service = (ServiceClass *) context;
cout << "Element " << e << " has value " << v << endl;
service->ChangeState(e, v);
return true;
}

C++: Monitoring multiple value types

I want to write a class that can monitor a bunch of different values for easy debugging. Imagine setting "watches" in a visual debugger. I'm picturing something like this:
struct Foo {
int x = 0;
std::string s = "bar";
};
int main() {
Foo f;
ValueMonitor::watch("number", &f.x);
ValueMonitor::watch("string", &f.s);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
++f.x;
if (i > 5) {
f.s = "new string";
}
// print the current value of the variable with the given key
// these should change as the loop goes on
ValueMonitor::print("number");
ValueMonitor::print("string");
// or
ValueMonitor::printAll();
// obviously this would be unnecessary in this example since I
// have easy access to f, but imagine monitoring different
// values from all over a much larger code base
}
}
Then these could be easily monitored somewhere in the application's GUI or whatever.
However, I don't know how to handle the different types that would be stored in this class. Ideally, I should be able to store anything that has a string representation. I have a few ideas but none of them really seem right:
Store pointers to a superclass that defines a toString function or operator<<, like Java's Object. But this would require me to make wrappers for any primitives I want to monitor.
Something like boost::any or boost::spirit::hold_any. I think any needs to be type casted before I can print it... I guess I could try/catch casting to a bunch of different types, but that would be slow. hold_any requires defined stream operators, which would be perfect... but I can't get it to work with pointers.
Anyone have any ideas?
I found a solution somewhere else. I was pretty blown away, so might as well post it here for future reference. It looks something like this:
class Stringable
{
public:
virtual ~Stringable() {};
virtual std::string str() const = 0;
using Ptr = std::shared_ptr<Stringable>;
};
template <typename T>
class StringableRef : public Stringable
{
private:
T* _ptr;
public:
StringableRef(T& ref)
: _ptr(&ref) {}
virtual ~StringableRef() {}
virtual std::string str() const
{
std::ostringstream ss;
ss << *_ptr;
return ss.str();
}
};
class ValueMonitor
{
private:
static std::map<std::string, Stringable::Ptr> _values;
public:
ValueMonitor() {}
~ValueMonitor() {}
template <typename T>
static void watch(const std::string& label, T& ref)
{
_values[label] = std::make_shared<StringableRef<T>>(ref);
}
static void printAll()
{
for (const auto& valueItr : _values)
{
const String& name = valueItr.first;
const std::shared_ptr<Stringable>& value = valueItr.second;
std::cout << name << ": " << value->str() << std::endl;
}
}
static void clear()
{
_values.clear();
}
};
std::map<std::string, Stringable::Ptr> ValueMonitor::_values;
.
int main()
{
int i = 5;
std::string s = "test"
ValueMonitor::watch("number", i);
ValueMonitor::watch("string", s);
ValueMonitor::printAll();
i = 10;
s = "new string";
ValueMonitor::printAll();
return 0;
}

Is it possible to use template metaprogramming to do compile time selection of functionality that class will perform?

Often I write classes like this:
Logger::Logger(bool log_time_, bool log_percentage, bool log_size):log_time(log_time_)... //made up example
Logger::Log()
{
string log_line;
if (log_time)
log_line += (get_time());
if (log_percentage)
log_line += (get_percentage());
//...
}
And I wonder is there a way to turn my class using template magic into a code that does the "if (something)" part at compile time.
EDIT:
Values of bool variables are known at compile time.
Preface
Two solutions will be found in this post, one using C++03 and the other C++11.
It's hard (ie. you'll need to write a lot of code) if you'd like a true compile time if that is guaranteed not to have any runtime overhead what so ever (no function jumps, etc etc).
It is however possible, though the code will be quite tedious to maintain if you feel like adding another option to it (in C++03). I'd recommend you to check out the below solutions.
Solution in C++03
Your compiler should be smart enough to optimize away any call to LogHelper<+NONE>, though if you are just looking for more readable code and not a superb performance gain this syntax is quite sweet.
enum LoggerType {
NONE =0,
DATE = (1<<0),
TIME = (1<<1),
PERCENT = (1<<2)
};
template<int> void LogHelper (std::string&);
template<> inline void LogHelper<+NONE> (std::string&) {}
template<> inline void LogHelper<+DATE> (std::string& s) {s += "1970-01-01 ";}
template<> inline void LogHelper<+TIME> (std::string& s) {s += "12:01:01 ";}
template<> inline void LogHelper<+PERCENT> (std::string& s) {s += "42% ";}
template<int LOG_FLAG = NONE>
struct Logger {
static void log (std::string const& description) {
std::string s1;
LogHelper<DATE & LOG_FLAG> (s1);
LogHelper<TIME & LOG_FLAG> (s1);
LogHelper<PERCENT & LOG_FLAG> (s1);
std::cerr.width (25);
std::cerr << s1 << " >> " << description << std::endl;
}
};
...
int
main (int argc, char * argv[]) {
Logger<DATE|TIME|PERCENT> foo_log;
Logger<TIME> time_log;
Logger<> no_log;
time_log.log ("log objects initialized!");
foo_log .log ("using foo_log");
no_log .log ("about to terminate application");
}
output
12:01:01 >> log objects initialized!
1970-01-01 12:01:01 42% >> using foo_log
>> about to terminate application
Solution using Variadic Templates (C++11)
enum LoggerType {
NONE, PERCENT, DATE, TIME
};
template<LoggerType T = NONE, LoggerType ... Next>
std::string LogHelper () {
return LogHelper<T> () + "; " + LogHelper<Next...> ();
}
template<> std::string LogHelper<NONE> () {return ""; }
template<> std::string LogHelper<DATE> () {return "1970-01-01";}
template<> std::string LogHelper<TIME> () {return "00:01:42";}
template<> std::string LogHelper<PERCENT> () {return "42%";}
template<LoggerType ... Types>
struct Logger {
static void log (std::string const& description) {
std::cerr.width (25);
std::cerr << LogHelper<Types...> ();
std::cerr << " >> " << description;
std::cerr << std::endl;
}
};
...
int
main (int argc, char * argv[]) {
Logger<DATE,TIME,PERCENT> foo_log;
Logger<TIME> time_log;
Logger<> no_log;
time_log.log ("log objects initialized!");
foo_log .log ("using foo_log");
no_log .log ("about to terminate application");
}
output
00:01:42 >> log objects initialized!
1970-01-01; 00:01:42; 42% >> using foo_log
>> about to terminate application
Yes this is possible, although some compilers will not like for you it. You will essentially however end up with a set of different classes as you have to provide booleans as the template specifiers (may not be the correct terminology).
I think you maybe better off using a virtual Log method instead? Then create a handful of classes which each define their own Log method. Unless you have some other reason I would suggest using virtual functions over templates for this case.
Sure. Something like this:
template <bool Opt1, bool Opt2> void foo()
{
Action1<Opt1>();
Action2<Opt2>();
}
template <bool> void Action1();
template <bool> void Action2();
template <> void Action1<true>() { /* ... */ }
template <> void Action1<false>() { /* ... */ }
template <> void Action2<true>() { /* ... */ }
template <> void Action2<false>() { /* ... */ }
Invoke this like foo<true, false>();.
Why would you want to employ templates where it isn't needed? Any self-respecting C++ compiler will do constant folding based on constant expressions: it has to work out the values for these at compile-time anyway. That is, any conditional based on a constant expression won't be there at run-time. The only two drawbacks of this approach are:
you are relying on the compiler to be reasonably decent at a rather basic level
symbols referenced from the code never executed my still be referenced
With respect to your Boolean flags you still have to make sure that they are recognized as constant expressions, however. Using a template would enforce this.
You can do something like this
struct DummyEnhancer
{
void operator()(string& s) const{
}
};
struct TimerEnhancer
{
void operator()(string& s) const{
s += "time";
}
};
struct PercenterEnhancer
{
void operator()(string& s) const{
s += "percent";
}
};
template <typename Timer , typename Percenter>
struct Logger
{
void Log()
{
string log_line;
Timer t;
t( log_line );
Percenter p;
p( log_line );
}
};
int main()
{
Logger<DummyEnhancer,DummyEnhancer> foo;
foo.Log();
Logger< TimerEnhancer , PercenterEnhancer > bar;
bar.Log();
return 0;
}
foo.Log() will be a no op and bar.log() will do both the timer and percentage stuff you want
Yes for compile time constants you can use template programming:
template<bool log_time, bool log_perchentage, bool log_size>
struct Logger
{
static void log()
{ // log everything
string log_line;
log_line+=(get_time());
log_line+=(get_perchentage());
log_line+=(get_size());
}
};
template<>
struct Logger<false, false, false>
{
static void log()
{ // nothing to log
}
};
You can also specialize the intermediate versions as Logger<true, false, false> and Logger<false, true, true> and so on. The other way to avoid several specializations is to separate time / percentage / size into different structs and log them separately.