Conditionally remove function calls in fold expression - c++

I know that I can use SFINAE to disable generation of templated functions based on a condition, but that doesn't really work in this case. I want to initialize an array at compile-time that should contain values that matches a condition. Something like this:
template <std::size_t i, class ... Types, class ... Group>
constexpr auto fetch_match(const std::tuple<Group...>& candidates)
{
if constexpr (is_match<std::tuple<Group...>, i, Types...>())
{
auto& group = std::get<i>(candidates);
return group.template get<Types...>();
}
}
template <class ... Types, class ... Group, std::size_t ... indices>
constexpr auto get_matches(const std::tuple<Group...>& candidates, std::index_sequence<indices...>)
{
constexpr std::array views {
(fetch_match<indices, Types...>(candidates), ...),
};
return views;
}
I know the code above is wrong and doesn't compile. If the condition isn't filled, then I want the fold expression to not generate that function call. How would I do that?
This question might be an XY-problem, so here's a the problem in more detail.
I have a Registry that contains Groups of heterogeneous data. I want to be able to query all groups that contains the specified sub list of types. For example, for (const auto& view : registry.get<char, short, int>()) should yield an array with views of the groups that contain char, short and int. I've created a mcve below. The problem with the current code is that I have to first create the array and then copy the views, which I'd like to avoid.
#include <tuple>
#include <array>
#include <utility>
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
template <typename T, typename... Ts>
constexpr bool contains = (std::is_same<T, Ts>{} || ...);
template <typename Subset, typename Set>
constexpr bool is_subset_of = false;
template <typename... Ts, typename... Us>
constexpr bool is_subset_of<std::tuple<Ts...>, std::tuple<Us...>> = (contains<Ts, Us...> && ...);
template <typename ... T>
struct View
{
const char* name_of_group; // For debugging.
std::tuple<T...> data;
};
template <typename ... Ts>
struct Group
{
using type_set = std::tuple<Ts...>;
static const char* name; // For debugging.
std::tuple<Ts...> data;
explicit Group(Ts... values) : data(values...) {}
template <typename ... Us>
[[nodiscard]] View<Us...> get() const noexcept
{
return { this->name, std::make_tuple(std::get<Us>(this->data)...) };
}
};
template <class Groups, std::size_t i, class ... Types>
constexpr bool is_match()
{
using group_type = std::tuple_element_t<i, Groups>;
bool match = is_subset_of<std::tuple<Types...>, typename group_type::type_set>;
return match;
}
template <std::size_t i, class ... Types, class ... Group, class Array>
constexpr void add_matches(const std::tuple<Group...>& candidates, Array& matches, std::size_t& index)
{
if constexpr (is_match<std::tuple<Group...>, i, Types...>())
{
auto& group = std::get<i>(candidates);
matches[index++] = group.template get<Types...>();
}
}
template <class ... Types, class ... Group, std::size_t ... indices>
constexpr auto get_matches(const std::tuple<Group...>& candidates, std::index_sequence<indices...>)
{
constexpr std::size_t size = (is_match<std::tuple<Group...>, indices, Types...>() + ... + 0);
std::array<View<Types...>, size> views {};
std::size_t index = 0;
(add_matches<indices, Types...>(candidates, views, index), ...);
return views;
}
template <typename ... Group>
class Registry
{
public:
explicit Registry(Group... groups) : groups(groups...) {}
template <typename ... T>
auto get()
{
constexpr auto indices = std::index_sequence_for<Group...>{};
return get_matches<T...>(this->groups, indices);
}
private:
std::tuple<Group...> groups;
};
using A = Group<char>;
using B = Group<char, short>;
using C = Group<char, short, int>;
using D = Group<char, short, int, long long>;
// Giving the classes names for debugging purposes.
template<> const char* A::name = "A";
template<> const char* B::name = "B";
template<> const char* C::name = "C";
template<> const char* D::name = "D";
int main()
{
auto registry = Registry(A{0}, B{1,1}, C{2,2,2}, D{3,3,3,3});
// Should yield an array of size 2 with View<char, short, int>,
// one from group C and one from Group D.
for (const auto& view : registry.get<char, short, int>())
{
std::cout << "View of group: " << view.name_of_group << std::endl;
std::cout << "char: " << int(std::get<char>(view.data)) << std::endl;
std::cout << "short: " << std::get<short>(view.data) << std::endl;
std::cout << "int: " << std::get<int>(view.data) << std::endl;
}
}
Trying the suggestion in the comments, the following code is as far as I got.
template <class Groups, std::size_t i, class ... Types>
constexpr bool is_match()
{
using group_type = std::tuple_element_t<i, Groups>;
bool match = is_subset_of<std::tuple<Types...>, typename group_type::type_set>;
return match;
}
template <class ... Types, class ... Group, std::size_t ... indices>
constexpr auto build_view_array(const std::tuple<Group...>& candidates, std::index_sequence<indices...>)
{
std::array views {
std::get<indices>(candidates).template get<Types...>()...
};
return views;
}
template <std::size_t i, class Groups, class TypeSet, std::size_t ... x>
constexpr auto get_matching_indices()
{
if constexpr (is_match<Groups, i, TypeSet>())
return std::index_sequence<x..., i>{};
else
return std::index_sequence<x...>{};
}
template <std::size_t i, std::size_t j, std::size_t ... rest, class Groups, class TypeSet, std::size_t ... x>
constexpr auto get_matching_indices()
{
if constexpr (is_match<Groups, i, TypeSet>())
return get_matching_indices<j, rest..., Groups, TypeSet, i, x...>();
else
return get_matching_indices<j, rest..., Groups, TypeSet, x...>();
}
template <class ... Types, class ... Group, std::size_t ... indices>
constexpr auto get_matches(const std::tuple<Group...>& candidates, std::index_sequence<indices...>)
{
constexpr auto matching_indices = get_matching_indices<indices..., std::tuple<Group...>, std::tuple<Types...>>();
constexpr auto views = build_view_array<Types...>(candidates, matching_indices);
return views;
}
It feels like it should work, but it won't compile due to the following error:
/Users/tedkleinbergman/Programming/ECS/temp.cpp:76:39: error: no matching function for call to 'get_matching_indices'
constexpr auto matching_indices = get_matching_indices<indices..., std::tuple<Group...>, std::tuple<Types...>>();
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/Users/tedkleinbergman/Programming/ECS/temp.cpp:92:16: note: in instantiation of function template specialization 'get_matches<char, short, int, Group<char>, Group<char, short>, Group<char, short, int>, Group<char, short, int, long long> , 0, 1, 2, 3>' requested here
return get_matches<T...>(this->groups, indices);
^
/Users/tedkleinbergman/Programming/ECS/temp.cpp:118:38: note: in instantiation of function template specialization 'Registry<Group<char>, Group<char, short>, Group<char, short, int>, Group<char, short, int, long long> >::get<char, short, int>' requested here
for (const auto& view : registry.get<char, short, int>())
^
/Users/tedkleinbergman/Programming/ECS/temp.cpp:57:16: note: candidate template ignored: invalid explicitly-specified argument for template parameter 'Groups'
constexpr auto get_matching_indices()
^
/Users/tedkleinbergman/Programming/ECS/temp.cpp:65:16: note: candidate template ignored: invalid explicitly-specified argument for template parameter 'rest'
constexpr auto get_matching_indices()
^
1 error generated.

First, start with an index_sequence filter:
template<std::size_t I>
using index_t = std::integral_constant<std::size_t, I>;
template<std::size_t I>
constexpr index_t<I> index = {};
template<std::size_t...Is, std::size_t...Js>
constexpr std::index_sequence<Is...,Js...> concatenate( std::index_sequence<Is...>, std::index_sequence<Js...> ) {
return {};
}
template <class Test>
constexpr auto filter_sequence(std::index_sequence<> sequence, Test test) {
return sequence;
}
template<std::size_t I0, std::size_t...Is, class Test>
constexpr auto filter_sequence( std::index_sequence<I0, Is...>, Test test )
{
constexpr auto tail = filter_sequence( std::index_sequence<Is...>{}, test );
if constexpr ( test(index<I0>) ) {
return concatenate( std::index_sequence<I0>{}, tail );
} else {
return tail;
}
}
we then use these primitives.
template <class Group, class ... Types>
constexpr auto get_match_indexes()
{
constexpr auto test = [](auto I){ return is_match<Group, I, Types...>(); };
constexpr auto indexes = std::make_index_sequence< std::tuple_size_v<Group> >{};
constexpr auto retval = filter_sequence( indexes, test );
return retval;
}
template<class ... Types, class Group, std::size_t...Is>
std::array<sizeof...Is, View<Types...>> get_matches(const Group& candidates, std::index_sequence<Is...> ) {
return {{
std::get<Is>(candidates).template get<Types...>(), ...
}};
}
template<class ... Types, class Group>
std::array<sizeof...Is, View<Types...>> get_matches(const Group& candidates ) {
return get_matches<Types...>( candidates, get_match_indexes<Group, Types...>() );
}
or something like that.
Note that some compilers may need to replace is_match<Group, I, Types...>() with is_match<Group, decltype(I)::value, Types...>().
There may be typos. This uses c++17 at the least.
filter_sequence uses O(n^2) template symbol length and O(n) recursive template instantiation depth. It can be improved to O(n lg n) length and O(lg n) depth with a tricky code; basically, you need to split Is... into As... and Bs... down the middle and recurse that way.
Here is a log-depth split of an index sequence:
template<class A, class B>
struct two_things {
A a;
B b;
};
template<class A, class B>
two_things(A,B)->two_things<A,B>;
template<class Seq>
constexpr auto split_sequence( index_t<0>, Seq seq ) {
return two_things{ std::index_sequence<>{}, seq };
}
template<std::size_t I0, std::size_t...Is>
constexpr auto split_sequence( index_t<1>, std::index_sequence<I0, Is...> seq ) {
return two_things{ std::index_sequence<I0>{}, std::index_sequence<Is...>{} };
}
template<std::size_t N, class Seq>
constexpr auto split_sequence( index_t<N>, Seq seq ) {
constexpr auto step1 = split_sequence( constexpr_index<N/2>, seq );
constexpr auto step2 = split_sequence( constexpr_index<N-N/2>, step1.b );
return two_things{ concatenate(step1.a, step2.a), step2.b };
}
template<std::size_t...Is>
constexpr auto halve_sequence( std::index_sequence<Is...> seq ) {
return split( index< (sizeof...(Is)) / 2u >, seq );
}
(two_things exists as a many-many-many times lighter tuple or pair than the std one).
That in turn lets you improve filter sequence.
template<std::size_t I, class Test>
constexpr auto filter_sequence( std::index_sequence<I> seq, Test test )
{
if constexpr ( test(constexpr_index<I>) ) {
return seq;
} else {
return std::index_sequence<>{};
}
}
template<std::size_t...Is, class Test>
constexpr auto filter_sequence( std::index_sequence<Is...> seq, Test test )
{
constexpr auto split = halve_sequence( seq );
constexpr auto head = filter_sequence( split.a, test );
constexpr auto tail = filter_sequence( split.b, test );
return concatenate(head, tail);
}
this version should compile faster and use less memory, especially for large numbers of elements. But you should start with the simpler one above, because (as I noted) there are probably plenty of tpyos.
Live example.

Related

Generalizing std::conditional_t<>

I have a function that computes a certain object from a given parameter (say, an important node from a graph). Now, when calculating such an object, the function might allocate some memory. Sometimes I want the function to just return the result, and sometimes to return the result plus the memory used to compute it.
I typically solve this binary case like this:
enum class what {
what1, // return, e.g., just an int
what2 // return, e.g., a std::pair<int, std::vector<int>>
};
template <what w>
std::conditional_t<w == what::what1, int, std::pair<int, std::vector<int>>>
calculate_something(const param& p) { ... }
I would like to generalize the solution above to longer enumerations
enum class list_whats {
what1,
what2,
what3,
what4,
what5
};
One possible solution is to nest as many std::conditional_t as needed
template <list_whats what>
std::conditional_t<
what == list_whats::what1,
int,
std::conditional_t<
what == list_whats::what2,
float,
....
>
>
>
calculate_something(const param& p) { ... }
But this is cumbersome and perhaps not too elegant.
Does anyone know how to do this in C++ 17?
EDIT
To make the question perfectly clear: how do I implement the function return_something so as to be able to run the following main?
int main() {
int s1 = return_something<list_whats::what1>();
s1 = 3;
float s2 = return_something<list_whats::what2>();
s2 = 4.0f;
double s3 = return_something<list_whats::what3>();
s3 = 9.0;
std::string s4 = return_something<list_whats::what4>();
s4 = "qwer";
std::vector<int> s5 = return_something<list_whats::what5>();
s5[3] = 25;
}
I don't think you should use std::conditional at all to solve your problem. If I get this right, you want to use a template parameter to tell your function what to return. The elegant way to do this could look something like this:
#include <vector>
enum class what { what1, what2 };
template <what W>
auto compute() {
if constexpr (W == what::what1) {
return 100;
}
if constexpr (W == what::what2) {
return std::pair{100, std::vector<int>{}};
}
}
auto main() -> int {
[[maybe_unused]] const auto as_int = compute<what::what1>();
[[maybe_unused]] const auto as_pair = compute<what::what2>();
}
You can also use template specialization if you prefer another syntax:
template <what W>
auto compute();
template <>
auto compute<what::what1>() {
return 100;
}
template <>
auto compute<what::what2>() {
return std::pair{100, std::vector<int>{}};
}
Here's my approach:
what_pair is a pair that corresponds one enum to one type.
what_type_index accepts a enum and a std::tuple<what_pair<...>...> and searches the tuple map where the enums are equal and returns index. It returns maximum std::size_t value, if no match was found.
what_type is the final type, it is the tuple element at the found position. The program won't compile when the index is std::size_t max value because of invalid std::tuple access.
template<what W, typename T>
struct what_pair {
constexpr static what w = W;
using type = T;
};
template<what w, typename tuple_map>
constexpr auto what_type_index() {
std::size_t index = std::numeric_limits<std::size_t>::max();
auto search_map = [&]<std::size_t... Ints>(std::index_sequence<Ints...>) {
((std::tuple_element_t<Ints, tuple_map>::w == w ? (index = Ints) : 0), ...);
};
search_map(std::make_index_sequence<std::tuple_size_v<tuple_map>>());
return index;
}
template<what w, typename tuple_map>
using what_type = typename
std::tuple_element_t<what_type_index<w, tuple_map>(), tuple_map>::type;
and this is the example usage:
int main() {
using what_map = std::tuple<
what_pair<what::what1, int>,
what_pair<what::what2, float>,
what_pair<what::what3, double>,
what_pair<what::what4, std::string>,
what_pair<what::what5, std::vector<int>>>;
static_assert(std::is_same_v<what_type<what::what1, what_map>, int>);
static_assert(std::is_same_v<what_type<what::what2, what_map>, float>);
static_assert(std::is_same_v<what_type<what::what3, what_map>, double>);
static_assert(std::is_same_v<what_type<what::what4, what_map>, std::string>);
static_assert(std::is_same_v<what_type<what::what5, what_map>, std::vector<int>>);
//compilation error, because 'what6' wasn't specified in the 'what_map'
using error = what_type<what::what6, what_map>;
}
try it out on godbolt.
I found a possible solution that nests two structs: the first takes a list of Boolean values to indicate which type should be used, and the nested struct takes the list of possible types (see conditional_list in the example code below -- the nested structs were inspired by this answer). But perhaps it's not elegant enough. I'm wondering if there is a possible solution of the form
std::conditional_list<
..., // list of Boolean values, (of any length!)
... // list of types (list that should be as long as the first)
>::type
My proposal
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
template<auto A, auto... ARGS>
constexpr auto sum = A + sum<ARGS...>;
template<auto A>
constexpr auto sum<A> = A;
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
template <bool... values>
static constexpr bool exactly_one_v = sum<values...> == 1;
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
template <bool... values>
struct which {
static_assert(exactly_one_v<values...>);
template <std::size_t idx, bool v1, bool... vs>
struct _which_impl {
static constexpr std::size_t value =
(v1 ? idx : _which_impl<idx + 1, vs...>::value);
};
template <std::size_t idx, bool v>
struct _which_impl<idx, v> {
static constexpr std::size_t value = (v ? idx : idx + 1);
};
static constexpr std::size_t value = _which_impl<0, values...>::value;
};
template <bool... conds>
static constexpr std::size_t which_v = which<conds...>::value;
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
template <std::size_t ith_idx, typename... Ts>
struct ith_type {
template <std::size_t cur_idx, typename t1, typename... ts>
struct _ith_type_impl {
typedef
std::conditional_t<
ith_idx == cur_idx,
t1,
typename _ith_type_impl<cur_idx + 1, ts...>::type
>
type;
};
template <std::size_t cur_idx, typename t1>
struct _ith_type_impl<cur_idx, t1> {
typedef
std::conditional_t<ith_idx == cur_idx, t1, std::nullptr_t>
type;
};
static_assert(ith_idx < sizeof...(Ts));
typedef typename _ith_type_impl<0, Ts...>::type type;
};
template <std::size_t ith_idx, typename... ts>
using ith_type_t = typename ith_type<ith_idx, ts...>::type;
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
template <bool... conds>
struct conditional_list {
template <typename... ts>
struct good_type {
static_assert(sizeof...(conds) == sizeof...(ts));
typedef ith_type_t<which_v<conds...>, ts...> type;
};
};
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
enum class list_whats {
what1,
what2,
what3,
what4,
what5,
};
template <list_whats what>
typename conditional_list<
what == list_whats::what1,
what == list_whats::what2,
what == list_whats::what3,
what == list_whats::what4,
what == list_whats::what5
>::template good_type<
int,
float,
double,
std::string,
std::vector<int>
>::type
return_something() noexcept {
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what1) { return 1; }
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what2) { return 2.0f; }
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what3) { return 3.0; }
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what4) { return "42"; }
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what5) { return {1,2,3,4,5}; }
}
int main() {
auto s1 = return_something<list_whats::what1>();
s1 = 3;
auto s2 = return_something<list_whats::what2>();
s2 = 4.0f;
auto s3 = return_something<list_whats::what3>();
s3 = 9.0;
auto s4 = return_something<list_whats::what4>();
s4 = "qwer";
auto s5 = return_something<list_whats::what5>();
s5[3] = 25;
}
An alternative to working only with types is to write a function that returns the specific type, or an identity<type>. It's sometimes more readable. Here is an example:
// if you don't have it in std
template<typename T>
struct identity {
using type = T;
};
enum class what {
what1,
what2,
what3
};
template<what w>
auto return_type_for_calc() {
if constexpr (w == what::what1) {
return identity<int>();
} else if constexpr (w==what::what2) {
return identity<double>();
} else {
return identity<float>();
}
}
template<what w>
decltype(return_type_for_calc<w>())
calculate_something()
{
return {};
}
int main() {
calculate_something<what::what1>();
calculate_something<what::what2>();
return 0;
}
Although I already posted an answer to my own question, and I accepted an answer from another user, I thought I could post another possibility in tackling this problem using the following struct
template <typename... Ts> struct type_sequence { };
which I learnt about in this talk by Andrei Alexandrescu. Since I learnt quite a bit by using it and the result is a bit simpler than the original answer that used two nested structs I thought I would share it here. However, the solution I would actually implement is the one that was accepted.
This is the full code with a main function included. Notice the change in the specification of function return_something. Now this function indicates the return type (which I like very much, perhaps I'm old fashioned) in a more readable way than in my first answer. You can try it out here.
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template <bool... values>
struct which {
template <std::size_t idx, bool v1, bool... vs>
struct _which_impl {
static constexpr std::size_t value =
(v1 ? idx : _which_impl<idx + 1, vs...>::value);
};
template <std::size_t idx, bool v>
struct _which_impl<idx, v> {
static constexpr std::size_t value = (v ? idx : idx + 1);
};
static constexpr std::size_t value = _which_impl<0, values...>::value;
};
template <std::size_t ith_idx, typename... Ts>
struct ith_type {
template <std::size_t cur_idx, typename t1, typename... ts>
struct _ith_type_impl {
using type =
std::conditional_t<
ith_idx == cur_idx,
t1,
typename _ith_type_impl<cur_idx + 1, ts...>::type
>;
};
template <std::size_t cur_idx, typename t1>
struct _ith_type_impl<cur_idx, t1> {
using type = std::conditional_t<ith_idx == cur_idx, t1, std::nullptr_t>;
};
using type = typename _ith_type_impl<0, Ts...>::type;
};
template <std::size_t ith_idx, typename... ts>
using ith_type_t = typename ith_type<ith_idx, ts...>::type;
template <bool... conds>
static constexpr std::size_t which_v = which<conds...>::value;
template <typename... Ts> struct type_sequence { };
template <bool... values> struct bool_sequence {
static constexpr std::size_t which = which_v<values...>;
};
template <std::size_t ith_idx, typename... Ts>
struct ith_type<ith_idx, type_sequence<Ts...>> : ith_type<ith_idx, Ts...>
{ };
template <typename bool_sequence, typename type_sequence>
struct conditional_list {
using type = ith_type_t<bool_sequence::which, type_sequence>;
};
template <typename bool_sequence, typename type_sequence>
using conditional_list_t =
typename conditional_list<bool_sequence, type_sequence>::type;
enum class list_whats {
what1,
what2,
what3,
what4,
what5,
};
template <list_whats what>
conditional_list_t<
bool_sequence<
what == list_whats::what1,
what == list_whats::what2,
what == list_whats::what3,
what == list_whats::what4,
what == list_whats::what5
>,
type_sequence<
int,
float,
double,
std::string,
std::vector<int>
>
>
return_something() noexcept {
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what1) { return 1; }
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what2) { return 2.0f; }
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what3) { return 3.0; }
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what4) { return "42"; }
if constexpr (what == list_whats::what5) { return {1,2,3,4,5}; }
}
int main() {
[[maybe_unused]] auto s1 = return_something<list_whats::what1>();
[[maybe_unused]] auto s2 = return_something<list_whats::what2>();
[[maybe_unused]] auto s3 = return_something<list_whats::what3>();
[[maybe_unused]] auto s4 = return_something<list_whats::what4>();
[[maybe_unused]] auto s5 = return_something<list_whats::what5>();
}

How to unpack tuple of unknown length?

There are three potential directions I can see.
std::tie()
Structured bindings, i.e. auto (var1, var2, var3...) = t;
std::get<?>(t)
I have tuple size from this:
int tupleSize = tuple_size<decltype(t)>::value;
How can I use tupleSize to unpack the tuple?
In case it's not clear, I want to be able to copy and paste a tuple of any size in and be able to compile and run the code without changing anything else.
Comments under question
I'd like to do arithmetic on the numeric values, and concatenation on the strings and char*'s. –
Alex
...
The tuple contains various types, so I won't be able to add every element. I have a tuple of strings, ints, doubles, char*s, etc. I need to be able to add numeric values and concatenate string values depending on the type. –
Alex
I understand this this way:
template<typename T1, typename T2>
auto add_items(const T1& a, const T2& b)
{
return a + b;
}
auto add_items(const char* a, const char* b)
{
return std::string{a} + b;
}
template<typename ...Ts, size_t ...indexes>
auto add_tuples_hepler(const std::tuple<Ts...>& a, const std::tuple<Ts...>& b, std::index_sequence<indexes...>)
{
return std::make_tuple(add_items(std::get<indexes>(a), std::get<indexes>(b))...);
}
template<typename ...Ts>
auto add_tuples(const std::tuple<Ts...>& a, const std::tuple<Ts...>& b)
{
return add_tuples_hepler(a, b, std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Ts)>{});
}
https://godbolt.org/z/a1bdbKKhh
Still I'm not convinced since lots of details are missing in question and comments.
You can accomplish this indirectly by filtering for different type categories.
template <template <typename> typename Cond, typename... Ts> //
constexpr static auto extractTup(std::tuple<Ts...> const& tup) {
if constexpr (sizeof...(Ts) == 0) {
return tup;
} else {
auto const head = [](auto const& x0, auto const&...) {
return std::tuple{x0};
};
auto const tail = [](auto const&, auto const&... xs) {
return std::tuple{xs...};
};
using T0 = std::tuple_element<0, std::tuple<Ts...>>::type;
if constexpr (Cond<T0>::value) {
return std::tuple_cat(std::apply(head, tup),
extractTup<Cond>(std::apply(tail, tup)));
} else {
return extractTup<Cond>(std::apply(tail, tup));
}
}
}
Examples
For example you can extract all values that are integral and then add them up in an extra std::apply call:
std::tuple<int, std::string, float, unsigned, char const*> test = {
-1, std::string{"hello"}, 3.14, 42, " world"
};
auto const inttp = extractTup<std::is_integral>(test);
auto const intsum = std::apply([](auto const&... i) { return (i + ...); }, inttp);
// intsum == 41
Similarly you can extract all strings and concatenate them:
template <typename T> struct is_stringy : std::false_type {};
template <> struct is_stringy<std::string> : std::true_type {};
template <> struct is_stringy<char const*> : std::true_type {};
template <> struct is_stringy<char*> : std::true_type {};
template <std::size_t N> struct is_stringy<char const[N]> : std::true_type {};
template <std::size_t N> struct is_stringy<char[N]> : std::true_type {};
.
auto const strtp = extractTup<is_stringy>(test);
// -> {std::string{"hello"}, " world"}
live demo

Determine member offset of struct or tuple in template

I want to write a template function that writes tables to HDF5 files.
The signature should look similar to
template<typename record> void writeTable(const std::vector<record>& data);
where record is a struct, or
template<typename... elements>
void writeTable(const std::vector<std::tuple<elements...>>& data);
The actual implementation would have more parameters to determine the destionation, etc.
To write the data I need to define a HDF5 compound type, which contains the name and the offset of the members. Usually you would use the HOFFSET macro the get the field offset, but as I don't know the struct fields beforehand I can't do that.
What I tried so far was constructing a struct type from the typename pack. The naive implementation did not have standard layout, but the implementation here does. All that's left is get the offsets of the members. I would like to expand the parameter pack into an initializer list with the offsets:
#include <vector>
template<typename... members> struct record {};
template<typename member, typename... members> struct record<member, members...> :
record<members...> {
record(member m, members... ms) : record<members...>(ms...), tail(m) {}
member tail;
};
template<typename... Args> void
make_table(const std::string& name, const std::vector<record<Args...>>& data) {
using record_type = record<Args...>;
std::vector<size_t> offsets = { get_offset(record_type,Args)... };
}
int main() {
std::vector<record<int, float>> table = { {1, 1.0}, {2, 2.0} };
make_table("table", table);
}
Is there a possible implementation for get_offset? I would think not, because in the case of record<int, int> it would be ambiguous. Is there another way to do it?
Or is there any other way I could approach this problem?
Calculating offsets is quite simple. Given a tuple with types T0, T1 ... TN. The offset of T0 is 0 (as long as you use alignas(T0) on your char array. The offset of T1 is the sizeof(T0) rounded up to alignof(T1).
In general, the offset of TB (which comes after TA) is round_up(offset_of<TA>() + sizeof(TA), alignof(TB)).
Calculating the offsets of elements in a std::tuple could be done like this:
constexpr size_t roundup(size_t num, size_t multiple) {
const size_t mod = num % multiple;
return mod == 0 ? num : num + multiple - mod;
}
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
struct offset_of {
static constexpr size_t value = roundup(
offset_of<I - 1, Tuple>::value + sizeof(std::tuple_element_t<I - 1, Tuple>),
alignof(std::tuple_element_t<I, Tuple>)
);
};
template <typename Tuple>
struct offset_of<0, Tuple> {
static constexpr size_t value = 0;
};
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
constexpr size_t offset_of_v = offset_of<I, Tuple>::value;
Here's a test suite. As you can see from the first test, the alignment of elements is taken into account.
static_assert(offset_of_v<1, std::tuple<char, long double>> == 16);
static_assert(offset_of_v<2, std::tuple<char, char, long double>> == 16);
static_assert(offset_of_v<3, std::tuple<char, char, char, long double>> == 16);
static_assert(offset_of_v<4, std::tuple<char, char, char, char, long double>> == 16);
static_assert(offset_of_v<0, std::tuple<int, double, int, char, short, long double>> == 0);
static_assert(offset_of_v<1, std::tuple<int, double, int, char, short, long double>> == 8);
static_assert(offset_of_v<2, std::tuple<int, double, int, char, short, long double>> == 16);
static_assert(offset_of_v<3, std::tuple<int, double, int, char, short, long double>> == 20);
static_assert(offset_of_v<4, std::tuple<int, double, int, char, short, long double>> == 22);
static_assert(offset_of_v<5, std::tuple<int, double, int, char, short, long double>> == 32);
I hardcoded the offsets in the above tests. The offsets are correct if the following tests succeed.
static_assert(sizeof(char) == 1 && alignof(char) == 1);
static_assert(sizeof(short) == 2 && alignof(short) == 2);
static_assert(sizeof(int) == 4 && alignof(int) == 4);
static_assert(sizeof(double) == 8 && alignof(double) == 8);
static_assert(sizeof(long double) == 16 && alignof(long double) == 16);
std::tuple seems to store it's elements sequentially (without sorting them to optimize padding). That's proven by the following tests. I don't think the standard requires std::tuple to be implemented this way so I don't think the following tests are guaranteed to succeed.
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
size_t real_offset(const Tuple &tup) {
const char *base = reinterpret_cast<const char *>(&tup);
return reinterpret_cast<const char *>(&std::get<I>(tup)) - base;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
using Tuple = std::tuple<int, double, int, char, short, long double>;
Tuple tup;
assert((offset_of_v<0, Tuple> == real_offset<0>(tup)));
assert((offset_of_v<1, Tuple> == real_offset<1>(tup)));
assert((offset_of_v<2, Tuple> == real_offset<2>(tup)));
assert((offset_of_v<3, Tuple> == real_offset<3>(tup)));
assert((offset_of_v<4, Tuple> == real_offset<4>(tup)));
assert((offset_of_v<5, Tuple> == real_offset<5>(tup)));
}
Now that I've gone to all of this effort, would that real_offset function suit your needs?
This is a minimal implementation of a tuple that accesses a char[] with offset_of. This is undefined behavior though because of the reinterpret_cast. Even though I'm constructing the object in the same bytes and accessing the object in the same bytes, it's still UB. See this answer for all the standardese. It will work on every compiler you can find but it's UB so just use it anyway. This tuple is standard layout (unlike std::tuple). If the elements of your tuple are all trivially copyable, you can remove the copy and move constructors and replace them with memcpy.
template <typename... Elems>
class tuple;
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
struct tuple_element;
template <size_t I, typename... Elems>
struct tuple_element<I, tuple<Elems...>> {
using type = std::tuple_element_t<I, std::tuple<Elems...>>;
};
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
using tuple_element_t = typename tuple_element<I, Tuple>::type;
template <typename Tuple>
struct tuple_size;
template <typename... Elems>
struct tuple_size<tuple<Elems...>> {
static constexpr size_t value = sizeof...(Elems);
};
template <typename Tuple>
constexpr size_t tuple_size_v = tuple_size<Tuple>::value;
constexpr size_t roundup(size_t num, size_t multiple) {
const size_t mod = num % multiple;
return mod == 0 ? num : num + multiple - mod;
}
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
struct offset_of {
static constexpr size_t value = roundup(
offset_of<I - 1, Tuple>::value + sizeof(tuple_element_t<I - 1, Tuple>),
alignof(tuple_element_t<I, Tuple>)
);
};
template <typename Tuple>
struct offset_of<0, Tuple> {
static constexpr size_t value = 0;
};
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
constexpr size_t offset_of_v = offset_of<I, Tuple>::value;
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
auto &get(Tuple &tuple) noexcept {
return *reinterpret_cast<tuple_element_t<I, Tuple> *>(tuple.template addr<I>());
}
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
const auto &get(const Tuple &tuple) noexcept {
return *reinterpret_cast<tuple_element_t<I, Tuple> *>(tuple.template addr<I>());
}
template <typename... Elems>
class tuple {
alignas(tuple_element_t<0, tuple>) char storage[offset_of_v<sizeof...(Elems), tuple<Elems..., char>>];
using idx_seq = std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Elems)>;
template <size_t I>
void *addr() {
return static_cast<void *>(&storage + offset_of_v<I, tuple>);
}
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
friend auto &get(const Tuple &) noexcept;
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
friend const auto &get(Tuple &) noexcept;
template <size_t... I>
void default_construct(std::index_sequence<I...>) {
(new (addr<I>()) Elems{}, ...);
}
template <size_t... I>
void destroy(std::index_sequence<I...>) {
(get<I>(*this).~Elems(), ...);
}
template <size_t... I>
void move_construct(tuple &&other, std::index_sequence<I...>) {
(new (addr<I>()) Elems{std::move(get<I>(other))}, ...);
}
template <size_t... I>
void copy_construct(const tuple &other, std::index_sequence<I...>) {
(new (addr<I>()) Elems{get<I>(other)}, ...);
}
template <size_t... I>
void move_assign(tuple &&other, std::index_sequence<I...>) {
(static_cast<void>(get<I>(*this) = std::move(get<I>(other))), ...);
}
template <size_t... I>
void copy_assign(const tuple &other, std::index_sequence<I...>) {
(static_cast<void>(get<I>(*this) = get<I>(other)), ...);
}
public:
tuple() noexcept((std::is_nothrow_default_constructible_v<Elems> && ...)) {
default_construct(idx_seq{});
}
~tuple() {
destroy(idx_seq{});
}
tuple(tuple &&other) noexcept((std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<Elems> && ...)) {
move_construct(other, idx_seq{});
}
tuple(const tuple &other) noexcept((std::is_nothrow_copy_constructible_v<Elems> && ...)) {
copy_construct(other, idx_seq{});
}
tuple &operator=(tuple &&other) noexcept((std::is_nothrow_move_assignable_v<Elems> && ...)) {
move_assign(other, idx_seq{});
return *this;
}
tuple &operator=(const tuple &other) noexcept((std::is_nothrow_copy_assignable_v<Elems> && ...)) {
copy_assign(other, idx_seq{});
return *this;
}
};
Alternatively, you could use this function:
template <size_t I, typename Tuple>
size_t member_offset() {
return reinterpret_cast<size_t>(&std::get<I>(*static_cast<Tuple *>(nullptr)));
}
template <typename Member, typename Class>
size_t member_offset(Member (Class::*ptr)) {
return reinterpret_cast<size_t>(&(static_cast<Class *>(nullptr)->*ptr));
}
template <auto MemPtr>
size_t member_offset() {
return member_offset(MemPtr);
}
Once again, this is undefined behavior (because of the nullptr dereference and the reinterpret_cast) but it will work as expected with every major compiler. The function cannot be constexpr (even though member offset is a compile-time calculation).
Not sure to understand what do you exactly want but... what about using recursion based on a index sequence (starting from C++14) something as follows?
#include <vector>
#include <utility>
#include <iostream>
template <typename... members>
struct record
{ };
template <typename member, typename... members>
struct record<member, members...> : record<members...>
{
record (member m, members... ms) : record<members...>(ms...), tail(m)
{ }
member tail;
};
template <std::size_t, typename, std::size_t = 0u>
struct get_offset;
template <std::size_t N, typename A0, typename ... As, std::size_t Off>
struct get_offset<N, record<A0, As...>, Off>
: public get_offset<N-1u, record<As...>, Off+sizeof(A0)>
{ };
template <typename A0, typename ... As, std::size_t Off>
struct get_offset<0u, record<A0, As...>, Off>
: public std::integral_constant<std::size_t, Off>
{ };
template <typename... Args, std::size_t ... Is>
auto make_table_helper (std::string const & name,
std::vector<record<Args...>> const & data,
std::index_sequence<Is...> const &)
{ return std::vector<std::size_t>{ get_offset<Is, record<Args...>>::value... }; }
template <typename... Args>
auto make_table (std::string const & name,
std::vector<record<Args...>> const & data)
{ return make_table_helper(name, data, std::index_sequence_for<Args...>{}); }
int main ()
{
std::vector<record<int, float>> table = { {1, 1.0}, {2, 2.0} };
auto v = make_table("table", table);
for ( auto const & o : v )
std::cout << o << ' ';
std::cout << std::endl;
}
Unfortunately isn't an efficient solution because the last value is calculated n-times.

How to flatten heterogeneous lists (aka tuples of tuples of ...)

I am attempting to employ C++17 fold expressions and the C++14 indices trick to flatten an arbitrary input consisting of tuples and non-tuples.
The expected result should at least conform to these requirements:
constexpr auto bare = 42;
constexpr auto single = std::tuple{bare};
constexpr auto nested_simple = std::tuple{single};
constexpr auto multiple = std::tuple{bare, bare};
constexpr auto nested_multiple = std::tuple{multiple};
constexpr auto multiply_nested = std::tuple{multiple, multiple};
static_assert(flatten(bare) == bare);
static_assert(flatten(single) == bare);
static_assert(flatten(nested_simple) == bare);
static_assert(flatten(multiple) == multiple);
static_assert(flatten(nested_multiple) == multiple);
static_assert(flatten(multiply_nested) == std::tuple{bare, bare, bare, bare});
I have relatively simple code to handle all but the last case:
template<typename T>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten(T&& t)
{
return std::forward<T>(t);
}
template<typename T>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten(std::tuple<T> t)
{
return std::get<0>(t);
}
template<typename... Ts>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten_multi(Ts&&... ts)
{
return std::make_tuple(flatten(ts)...);
}
template<typename... Ts, std::size_t... Indices>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten_impl(std::tuple<Ts...> ts, const std::index_sequence<Indices...>&)
{
return flatten_multi(std::get<Indices>(ts)...);
}
template<typename... Ts>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten(std::tuple<Ts...> ts)
{
return flatten_impl(ts, std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Ts)>());
}
Live demo here. Obviously, it doesn't handle multiply nested items well.
The more advanced form to handle the multiply_nested case I haven't found. I tried applying operator>> to be able to use fold expressions, but haven't been able to get anything that compiles. My last attempt can be found here. The core idea is to use operator>> in a fold expression to combine elements 2 by 2, each time unwrapping the previous result.
It seems to me I should be able to use something like std::tuple_cat, but it shouted at me quite loudly for reasons I couldn't decipher completely.
So my question is this: what am I missing? How can I unwrap an arbitrarily deeply arbitrarily nested tuple-like input?
I propose to SFINAE on presence of tuple
// Simple traits
template <typename T> struct is_tuple : std::false_type{};
template <typename... Ts> struct is_tuple<std::tuple<Ts...>> : std::true_type{};
// utility to ensure return type is a tuple
template<typename T>
constexpr decltype(auto) as_tuple(T t) { return std::make_tuple(t); }
template<typename ...Ts>
constexpr decltype(auto) as_tuple(std::tuple<Ts...> t) { return t; }
// Simple case
template<typename T>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten(T t)
{
return t;
}
// Possibly recursive tuple
template<typename T>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten(std::tuple<T> t)
{
return flatten(std::get<0>(t));
}
// No more recursion, (sizeof...Ts != 1) with above overload
template<typename ...Ts, std::enable_if_t<!(is_tuple<Ts>::value || ...), bool> = false>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten(std::tuple<Ts...> t)
{
return t;
}
// Handle recursion
template<typename ...Ts, std::enable_if_t<(is_tuple<Ts>::value || ...), bool> = false>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten(std::tuple<Ts...> t)
{
return std::apply([](auto...ts)
{
return flatten(std::tuple_cat(as_tuple(flatten(ts))...));
}, t);
}
Demo
namespace flattenns {
struct flat_t {};
template<std::size_t... Is, class...As>
constexpr auto flatten( std::index_sequence<Is...>, flat_t, std::tuple<As...> as ) {
return std::tuple_cat( flatten(flat_t{}, std::get<Is>(as))... );
}
template<class...As, class...Ts>
constexpr auto flatten( flat_t, std::tuple<As...> as ) {
return flatten( std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(As)>{}, flat_t{}, as );
}
template<class T>
constexpr std::tuple<T> flatten( flat_t, T t ) { return {t}; }
template<class...Ts>
constexpr auto flatten( flat_t, Ts... ts ) {
return std::tuple_cat( flatten(flat_t{}, ts)... );
}
constexpr std::tuple<> flatten( flat_t ) { return {}; }
}
template<class...Ts>
constexpr auto sane_flatten( Ts...ts ) {
return flattenns::flatten(flattenns::flat_t{}, ts...);
}
// to take std::tuple<int>(7) -> 7
namespace insanens {
template<class...Ts>
constexpr auto unpack_single( std::tuple<Ts...> t ) {return t;}
template<class T>
constexpr auto unpack_single( std::tuple<T> t ) {return std::get<0>(t);}
}
template<class...Ts>
constexpr auto insane_flatten( Ts...ts ) {
return insanens::unpack_single( sane_flatten(ts...) );
}
template<class...Ts>
constexpr auto flatten( Ts...ts ) {
return insane_flatten(ts...);
}
As noted above, flatten( std::tuple<int>(7) ) should NOT BE 7. That is insanity.
But as you want it, I add it as a post-processing step.
Your operation is otherwise relatively sane. You are recursively applying [[x],[y]] to [x,y]. The final unboxing is not sane. By splitting it off, the code becomes easy, which is also evidence why it is insane.
Live example.
In case you are wondering, the flat_t tag type exists in order to (a) split the index sequence from a possible argument (which could be done by having a different function name) and (b) enable ADL lookup so every implementation of flatten can see all of the other ones.
Here is another version that has two design goals:
avoid construction of temporary tuples and avoid std::tuple_cat
explicitly determine the types in the final tuple
For avoiding temporary tuples and std::tuple_cat, it is useful to predict the final size of the output tuple. Let us define a helper called get_rank:
#include <cstddef>
#include <tuple>
#include <type_traits>
template<class T>
struct Type {// tag type
using type = T;
};
template<class T>
constexpr std::size_t get_rank(Type<T>) {
static_assert(!std::is_const<T>{} && !std::is_volatile<T>{}, "avoid surprises");
return 1;
}
template<class... Ts>
constexpr std::size_t get_rank(Type< std::tuple<Ts...> >) {
return (0 + ... + get_rank(Type<Ts>{}));
}
The flatten function can utilize get_rank in order to create an index sequence for the elements of the output tuple. This sequence is passed to flatten_impl together with the forwarded input tuple and a type tag. Let us explicitly provide lvalue and rvalue overloads for the interface function, but use perfect forwarding internally:
#include <cstddef>
#include <tuple>
#include <utility>
// to be implemented
#include "tuple_element_at_rankpos_t.hpp"
#include "get_at_rankpos.hpp"
template<std::size_t... rank_positions, class Tuple, class... Ts>
constexpr auto flatten_impl(
std::index_sequence<rank_positions...>,
Tuple&& tuple,
Type< std::tuple<Ts...> > tuple_tag
) {
return std::tuple<
tuple_element_at_rankpos_t< rank_positions, std::tuple<Ts...> >...
>{
get_at_rankpos<rank_positions>(std::forward<Tuple>(tuple), tuple_tag)...
};
}
template<class... Ts>
constexpr auto flatten(const std::tuple<Ts...>& tuple) {
using TupleTag = Type< std::tuple<Ts...> >;
constexpr std::size_t rank = get_rank(TupleTag{});
return flatten_impl(
std::make_index_sequence<rank>{}, tuple, TupleTag{}
);
}
template<class... Ts>
constexpr auto flatten(std::tuple<Ts...>& tuple) {
using TupleTag = Type< std::tuple<Ts...> >;
constexpr std::size_t rank = get_rank(TupleTag{});
return flatten_impl(
std::make_index_sequence<rank>{}, tuple, TupleTag{}
);
}
template<class... Ts>
constexpr auto flatten(std::tuple<Ts...>&& tuple) {
using TupleTag = Type< std::tuple<Ts...> >;
constexpr std::size_t rank = get_rank(TupleTag{});
return flatten_impl(
std::make_index_sequence<rank>{}, std::move(tuple), TupleTag{}
);
}
At this point, we need two more building blocks:
tuple_element_at_rankpos_t (like std::tuple_element_t, but for nested tuples) and
get_at_rankpos (like std::get, but for nested tuples).
Either building block shall find the type/value of an element in the nested input tuple based on the element's position in the flattened output tuple. At each nesting level, these building blocks need to extract the index for the current nesting depth from the rankpos. This common index computation can be moved to an extract_index helper. The first building block may look like this:
#include <cassert>
#include <cstddef>
#include <array>
#include <tuple>
#include <utility>
template<class... Ts>
constexpr auto extract_index(
std::size_t rankpos, Type< std::tuple<Ts...> >
) {
static_assert(sizeof...(Ts) >= 1, "do not extract from empty tuples");
constexpr auto ranks = std::array{get_rank(Type<Ts>{})...};
std::size_t index = 0;
std::size_t nested_rankpos = rankpos;
while(nested_rankpos >= ranks[index]) {
nested_rankpos -= ranks[index++];
assert(index < sizeof...(Ts));
}
return std::pair{index, nested_rankpos};
}
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
template<std::size_t rankpos, class T>
constexpr auto tuple_element_at_rankpos_tag(
Type<T> /* element_tag */
) {
static_assert(rankpos == 0);
return Type<T>{};
}
template<std::size_t rankpos, class... Ts>
constexpr auto tuple_element_at_rankpos_tag(
Type< std::tuple<Ts...> > tuple_tag
) {
// constexpr auto [index, nested_rankpos] = extract_index(rankpos, tuple_tag);
constexpr std::pair pair = extract_index(rankpos, tuple_tag);
constexpr std::size_t index = pair.first;
constexpr std::size_t nested_rankpos = pair.second;
using NestedType = std::tuple_element_t< index, std::tuple<Ts...> >;
return tuple_element_at_rankpos_tag<nested_rankpos>(
Type<NestedType>{}
);
}
template<std::size_t rankpos, class Tuple>
using tuple_element_at_rankpos_t = typename decltype(
tuple_element_at_rankpos_tag<rankpos>(Type<Tuple>{})
)::type;
The second building block is a repetition of the same glue code as above. In addition to the type we need to handle the values (lvalue, const lvalue, rvalue). Using perfect forwarding we may write:
template<std::size_t rankpos, class Element, class T>
constexpr decltype(auto) get_at_rankpos(
Element&& element,
Type<T> /* element_tag */
) {
static_assert(rankpos == 0);
return std::forward<Element>(element);
}
template<std::size_t rankpos, class Tuple, class... Ts>
constexpr decltype(auto) get_at_rankpos(
Tuple&& tuple,
Type< std::tuple<Ts...> > tuple_tag
) {
// constexpr auto [index, nested_rankpos] = extract_index(rankpos, tuple_tag);
constexpr std::pair pair = extract_index(rankpos, tuple_tag);
constexpr std::size_t index = pair.first;
constexpr std::size_t nested_rankpos = pair.second;
using NestedType = std::tuple_element_t< index, std::tuple<Ts...> >;
return get_at_rankpos<nested_rankpos>(
std::get<index>(std::forward<Tuple>(tuple)),
Type<NestedType>{}
);
}
Something perhaps a little more straightforward, although more verbose: partial class template specialization + if constexpr:
The basic approach is to specialize the following base class:
template<class... T>
struct flatten
{};
To account for our three cases:
A bare value
A tuple of one thing
A tuple of more than one thing
Case #1, the base case, is fairly straightforward, just return what we get:
//base case: something that isn't another tuple
template<class T>
struct flatten<T>
{
template<class U>
constexpr decltype(auto) operator()(U&& _value){
return std::forward<U>(_value);
}
};
Case #2 is also pretty straightforward, just recurse on itself until we reach Case #1
// recursive case 1 : plain old tuple of one item
template<class T>
struct flatten<std::tuple<T>>
{
template<class U>
constexpr decltype(auto) operator()(U&& _tup){
return flatten<std::remove_cvref_t<T>>{}(std::get<0>(_tup));
}
};
Case #3 is long because of the possible sub-cases, but each block is pretty readable. We
Flatten the first element (possibly recurses)
Flatten the rest of the elements (possible recurses)
And then we have four cases to consider:
We have two tuples (e.g., tuple<int, int>, tuple<int, int>)
We have a tuple and a value (e.g., tuple<int, int>, int)
We have a value and a tuple (e.g., int, tuple<int, int>)
We have two values (e.g., int, int)
We just need one helper function that allows us to strip the head off a tuple and return the rest of it.
// helper for getting tuple elements except the first one
template<template<class...> class Tup, class... T, size_t... indices>
constexpr auto get_rest_of_tuple(const Tup<T...>& _tup, std::index_sequence<indices...>){
return std::make_tuple(std::get<indices + 1>(_tup)...);
}
and some helper traits:
// some type traits to use for if constexpr
template<class T>
struct is_tuple : std::false_type{};
template<class... T>
struct is_tuple<std::tuple<T...>> : std::true_type{};
template<class T>
constexpr bool is_tuple_v = is_tuple<T>::value;
Finally the impl:
// recursive case 2: tuple of more than one item
template<class First, class Second, class... Rest>
struct flatten<std::tuple<First, Second, Rest...>>
{
template<class Tup>
constexpr decltype(auto) operator()(Tup&& _tup){
auto flattened_first = flatten<std::remove_cvref_t<First>>{}(std::get<0>(_tup));
auto restTuple = get_rest_of_tuple(_tup, std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Rest)+1>{});
auto flattened_rest = flatten<std::remove_cvref_t<decltype(restTuple)>>{}(restTuple);
// both are tuples
if constexpr(is_tuple_v<decltype(flattened_first)> && is_tuple_v<decltype(flattened_rest)>)
{
return std::tuple_cat(flattened_first, flattened_rest);
}
// only second is tuple
if constexpr(!is_tuple_v<decltype(flattened_first)> && is_tuple_v<decltype(flattened_rest)>)
{
return std::tuple_cat(std::make_tuple(flattened_first), flattened_rest);
}
//only first is tuple
if constexpr(is_tuple_v<decltype(flattened_first)> && !is_tuple_v<decltype(flattened_rest)>)
{
return std::tuple_cat(flattened_first, std::make_tuple(flattened_rest));
}
// neither are tuples
if constexpr(!is_tuple_v<decltype(flattened_first)> && !is_tuple_v<decltype(flattened_rest)>)
{
return std::tuple_cat(std::make_tuple(flattened_first), std::make_tuple(flattened_rest));
}
}
};
} // namespace detail
Finally, we use trampolining to hide all these details from the end user by shoving them into a details namespace and exposing the following function to call into them:
template<class T>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten(T&& _value){
return detail::flatten<std::remove_cvref_t<T>>{}(std::forward<T>(_value));
}
Demo
(includes some additional tests for correctness)
While the impl of Case #3 above is pretty straightforward it is both verbose and a bit inefficient (the compiler evaluates each of those if constexpr statements when it should only evaluate one, but I didn't want to string along else branches because of the nesting).
We can pretty vastly simplify Case #3 by diverting to two helper functions that detect whether the argument is a tuple of not and return the right thing:
template<class U, std::enable_if_t<!is_tuple_v<U>, int> = 0>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten_help(U&& _val){
return std::make_tuple(_val);
}
template<class... T>
constexpr decltype(auto) flatten_help(const std::tuple<T...>& _tup){
return _tup;
}
// recursive case 2: tuple of more than one item
template<class First, class Second, class... Rest>
struct flatten<std::tuple<First, Second, Rest...>>
{
template<class Tup>
constexpr decltype(auto) operator()(Tup&& _tup){
auto flattened_first = flatten<std::remove_cvref_t<First>>{}(std::get<0>(_tup));
auto restTuple = get_rest_of_tuple(_tup, std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Rest)+1>{});
auto flattened_rest = flatten<std::remove_cvref_t<decltype(restTuple)>>{}(restTuple);
return std::tuple_cat(flatten_help(flattened_first), flatten_help(flattened_rest));
}
};
Demo 2

How can I map a C++ parameter pack into a sequence of std::pair objects?

I have a variadic template function foo():
template <typename... Args>
void foo(Args &&... args);
This function is intended to be invoked with all arguments of size_t. I can enforce that using some metaprogramming. I need to take the resulting list of arguments two at a time and put them into a container of std::pair<size_t, size_t>. Conceptually, something like:
std::vector<std::pair<size_t, size_t> > = {
std::make_pair(args[0], args[1]),
std::make_pair(args[2], args[3]), ...
};
Is there a straightforward way to do this? I know that by pack expansion, I could put the arguments into a flat container, but is there a way to group them two by two into std::pair objects at the same time?
Indexing into packs isn't really doable (yet?), but indexing into tuples is. Just stick everything into a tuple first, and then pull everything back out as you go. Since everything's a size_t, we can just copy:
template <size_t... Is, class Tuple>
std::vector<std::pair<size_t, size_t>>
foo_impl(std::index_sequence<Is...>, Tuple tuple) {
return std::vector<std::pair<size_t, size_t> >{
std::make_pair(std::get<2*Is>(tuple), std::get<2*Is+1>(tuple))...
};
}
template <typename... Args>
void foo(Args... args)
{
auto vs = foo_impl(std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Args)/2>{},
std::make_tuple(args...));
// ...
}
Suppose you are allowed to refactor your logic into an internal helper function:
template <typename ...Args>
void foo(Args &&... args)
{
foo_impl(std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Args) / 2>(),
std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
Now we can operate on the argument pack index by index:
template <std::size_t ...I, typename ...Args>
void foo_impl(std::index_sequence<I...>, Args &&... args)
{
std::vector<std::pair<std::size_t, std::size_t>> v =
{ GetPair(std::integral_constant<std::size_t, I>(), args...)... };
}
It remains to implement the pair extractor:
template <typename A, typename B, typename ...Tail>
std::pair<std::size_t, std::size_t> GetPair(std::integral_constant<std::size_t, 0>,
A a, B b, Tail ... tail)
{
return { a, b };
}
template <std::size_t I, typename A, typename B, typename ...Tail>
std::pair<std::size_t, std::size_t> GetPair(std::integral_constant<std::size_t, I>,
A a, B b, Tail ... tail)
{
return GetPair<I - 1>(tail...);
}
With range-v3, you may do
template <typename... Args>
void foo(Args&&... args)
{
std::initializer_list<std::size_t> nbs = {static_cast<std::size_t>(args)...};
const auto pair_view =
ranges::view::zip(nbs | ranges::view::stride(2),
nbs | ranges::view::drop(1) | ranges::view::stride(2));
// And possibly
std::vector<std::pair<std::size_t, std::size_t>> pairs = pair_view;
// ...
}
Demo
Someone (cough #Barry cough) said that indexing into packs isn't possible.
This is C++. Impossible means we just haven't written it yet.
template<std::size_t I> struct index_t:std::integral_constant<std::size_t, I> {
using std::integral_constant<std::size_t, I>::integral_constant;
template<std::size_t J>
constexpr index_t<I+J> operator+( index_t<J> ) const { return {}; }
template<std::size_t J>
constexpr index_t<I-J> operator-( index_t<J> ) const { return {}; }
template<std::size_t J>
constexpr index_t<I*J> operator*( index_t<J> ) const { return {}; }
template<std::size_t J>
constexpr index_t<I/J> operator/( index_t<J> ) const { return {}; }
};
template<std::size_t I>
constexpr index_t<I> index{};
template<std::size_t B>
constexpr index_t<1> exponent( index_t<B>, index_t<0> ) { return {}; }
template<std::size_t B, std::size_t E>
constexpr auto exponent( index_t<B>, index_t<E> ) {
return index<B> * exponent( index<B>, index<E-1> );
}
template<std::size_t N>
constexpr index_t<0> from_base(index_t<N>) { return {}; }
template<std::size_t N, std::size_t c>
constexpr index_t<c-'0'> from_base(index_t<N>, index_t<c>) { return {}; }
template<std::size_t N, std::size_t c0, std::size_t...cs>
constexpr auto from_base(index_t<N>, index_t<c0>, index_t<cs>...) {
return
from_base(index<N>, index<c0>) * exponent(index<N>, index<sizeof...(cs)>)
+ from_base(index<N>, index<cs>...)
;
}
template<char...cs>
constexpr auto operator""_idx(){
return from_base(index<10>, index<cs>...);
}
auto nth = [](auto index_in){
return [](auto&&...elems)->decltype(auto){
using std::get;
constexpr auto I= index<decltype(index_in){}>;
return get<I>(std::forward_as_tuple(decltype(elems)(elems)...));
};
};
Now we get:
using pair_vec = std::vector<std::pair<std::size_t, std::size_t>>;
template <typename... Args>
pair_vec foo(Args &&... args) {
return
index_over< sizeof...(args)/2 >()
([&](auto...Is)->pair_vec{
return {
{
nth( Is*2_idx )( decltype(args)(args)... ),
nth( Is*2_idx+1_idx )( decltype(args)(args)... )
}...
};
});
}
where we "directly" index into our parameter packs using compile time constant indexes.
live example.