Problem with false case in conditional_t being compiled and evaluated - c++

I'm having a hard time understanding how to stop code from being evaluated with std::conditional_t in the false branch.
#include <type_traits>
using namespace std;
namespace {
template <typename T>
using BaseDifferenceType = decltype (T{} - T{});
}
int main ()
{
using T = int;
static_assert(! is_enum_v<T>);
BaseDifferenceType<T> xxx {};
// PROBLEM IS HERE - though is_enum is false, we still evaluate underlying_type<T> and complain it fails
using aaa = conditional_t<is_enum_v<T>, underlying_type_t<T>, BaseDifferenceType<T>>;
return 0;
}
You can try this online at https://www.onlinegdb.com/uxlpSWVXr.
Compiling (with C++17) gives the error:
error: ‘int’ is not an enumeration type
typedef __underlying_type(_Tp) type;
^~~~ main.cpp: In function ‘int main()’: main.cpp:16:87: error: template argument 2 is invalid
using aaa = conditional_t<is_enum_v<T>, underlying_type_t<T>, BaseDifferenceType<T>>;

The answer is simple:
You don't.
std::conditional_t always has three fully evaluated arguments:
Something boolean-like, and two types.
If one of them cannot be evaluated if the other is selected, you need to use a custom template and specialize it appropriately:
template <class T, bool = std::is_enum_v<T>>
struct type_finder { using type = std::underlying_type_t<T>; };
template <class T>
struct type_finder<T, false> { using type = BaseDifferenceType<T>; };
template <class T>
using type_finder_t = typename type_finder<T>::type;
An alternative is using if constexpr and automatic return-type-deduction:
template <class T>
auto type_finder_f() {
if constexpr (std::is_enum_v<T>)
return std::underlying_type_t<T>();
else
return BaseDifferenceType<T>();
}
template <class T>
using type_finder_t = decltype(type_finder_f<T>());

A possible alternative pass through a creation of a custom type traits as follows
template <template <typename...> class Cont, typename ... Ts>
struct LazyType
{ using type = Cont<Ts...>; };
and rewrite your std::conditional as follows
using aaa = std::conditional_t<
std::is_enum_v<T>,
LazyType<underlying_type_t, T>,
LazyType<BaseDifferenceType, T>>::type;
// ............................................^^^^^^
Observe I've added a final ::type: it's the "constructor" of the required type, completely avoiding the unwanted type.
Off Topic Unrequested Suggestion: avoid
using namespace std;
It's considered bad practice

Related

How do I define a function that takes a variadic class template?

I am trying to define a simple variant-based Result type alias, sort of like a poor man's rust-like Result type
:
namespace detail {
template <typename SuccessType, typename... ErrorTypes>
struct Result {
using type = std::variant<SuccessType, ErrorTypes...>;
};
template <typename... ErrorTypes>
struct Result<void, ErrorTypes...> {
using type = std::variant<std::monostate, ErrorTypes...>;
};
} // namespace detail
template <typename SuccessType, typename... ErrorTypes>
using Result_t = detail::Result<SuccessType, ErrorTypes...>::type;
i.e. a Result_t is just an std::variant where the 0th index is the successful result and the rest are error structs.
I defined this helper method to check if the result is good:
template <typename SuccessType, typename... ErrorTypes>
inline bool Ok(const Result_t<SuccessType, ErrorTypes...>& r) {
return r.index() == 0;
}
But I get a "no matching overloaded function found" when I try to instantiate it:
error C2672: 'Ok': no matching overloaded function found
error C2783: 'bool Ok(const detail::Result<SuccessType,ErrorTypes...>::type &)': could not deduce template argument for 'SuccessType'
struct FileError {};
struct BadJson {};
template <typename T>
using Result = Result_t<T, FileError, BadJson>;
Result<void> GetVoid() { return {}; }
TEST(ConfigFileTest, Result) {
auto res = GetVoid();
EXPECT_EQ(res.index(), 0);
bool ok = Ok(res);
EXPECT_TRUE(ok);
}
What am I doing wrong? If I just have Ok be templated like template <typename T> Ok(const T& r) it works, but makes the function too general.
After expanding the Result_t alias in the function parameter, it looks like this:
template <typename SuccessType, typename... ErrorTypes>
bool Ok(const detail::Result<SuccessType, ErrorTypes...>::type& r) {
return r.index() == 0;
}
The problematic part here is that the template parameters are left of the name resolution operator ::. Everything left of :: is a non-deduced context, meaning that it is not used to deduce template arguments. So since SuccessType and ErrorTypes... appear only in non-deduced context, they cannot be deduced and a call which doesn't explicitly specifies them will fail.
You can see that this rule is necessary, because theoretically any specialization of detail::Result<SuccessType, ErrorTypes...> could have a ::type that matches the arguments type. There is no way that the compiler can check this for every possible combination of types.
Instead of trying to alias types, make Result an actual new type:
template <typename SuccessType, typename... ErrorTypes>
struct Result {
using variant_type = std::variant<SuccessType, ErrorTypes...>;
variant_type variant;
};
template <typename... ErrorTypes>
struct Result<void, ErrorTypes...> {
using variant_type = std::variant<std::monostate, ErrorTypes...>;
variant_type variant;
};
template <typename SuccessType, typename... ErrorTypes>
bool Ok(const Result<SuccessType, ErrorTypes...>& r) {
return r.variant.index() == 0;
}
or something along those lines. If you really want to use the old design using only aliases, then the function should not take the nested alias as argument, but the actual type instead (which is probably not match the intent of the design):
template <typename T, typename... ErrorTypes>
bool Ok(const std::variant<T, ErrorTypes...>& r) {
return r.index() == 0;
}
(I removed the inline on the templates. inline on a function template doesn't really make much sense.)

Select member type of class template based on template type?

I have a class template that has members of some type. This type is determined based on the type that is provided when instantiating the template. It uses a default (double in the example below) unless an override is provided by that class. Classes used as template types may provide this override type (here "Two" provides the override type "int"). If a class provides the override, the override should only be used if the class also sets the UseOverride flag. If flag is absent or false, default "double" should be used.
Problem is that if the template type does not provide the "type", then compiler gives error in below code. I suspect I need to use SFINAE here, but haven't been able to figure out a suitable approach for it, even after puzzling and browsing related questions for a good part of the afternoon.
How to define the EventType template so that it works as intended? I want to keep the EventType<T> syntax.
#include <iostream>
struct One {
//This type is ignored, and double is used, because UseOverride = true is not specified:
using type = short;
};
struct Two {
static constexpr bool UseOverride = true;
using type = int;
};
struct Three {
static constexpr bool UseOverride = false;
//I don't want the compiler to complain that "type" is not available here (because it should default to double anyhow since
//the class instructs not to use the override). But compile does generate error.
//How to avoid this?
};
template <typename T, typename = void>
struct overrideInfoProvided : std::false_type {};
template <typename T>
struct overrideInfoProvided<T, decltype((void)T::UseOverride, void())> : std::true_type {};
template <typename T>
constexpr bool Override()
{
if constexpr (overrideInfoProvided<T>::value)
{
return T::UseOverride;
}
return false;
}
template<class T>
using EventType = typename std::conditional_t<Override<T>(), typename T::type, double>;
template <class T>
struct Test
{
typename EventType<T> member;
Test()
{
std::cout << member << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Test<One>();
Test<Two>();
//Gives error:
//Test<Three>();// `type': is not a member of any direct or indirect base class of `three';
}
I don't want the compiler to complain that "type" is not available here (because it should default to double anyhow since the class instructs not to use the override). But compiler does generate error. How to avoid this?
Just defer the access to ::type with the below type_identity helper:
template <typename T>
struct type_identity { using type = T; };
template <typename T>
using EventType = typename std::conditional_t<Override<T>()
, T
, type_identity<double>>::type;
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~^
DEMO
You are on the right track, but you don't need to have separate checks for the existence of useOverride, and type. Instead, you can do both of the checks in the same sfinae class:
template <typename T, typename = void, typename = void>
struct EventType_T {
using t = double; // default if useOverride or type doesn't exist
};
template <typename T>
struct EventType_T<T, std::void_t<decltype(T::UseOverride)>,
std::void_t<typename T::type>> {
// choose type if useOverride is true, and double otherwise
using t = std::conditional_t<T::UseOverride, typename T::type, double>;
};
template <typename T>
using EventType = typename EventType_T<T>::t;
Here's a demo. This allows you to still use the EventType<T> syntax as before.
Note, the t member instead of type is unconventional, but since we are already testing for a type member in T, this might make it clearer what's going on. I would recommend using type once yo understand how the solution works.

Generic `Is_enabled` SFINAE structure

I aim to implement a structure template that can be used to detect either if a template substitution is well formed or will fail. An example of usage is to provide two versions of template functions depending on whether the template parameter is comparable or not.
It can be solved quite easily if one provides structures for each scenario explicitly, e.g. whether there exists an equality operator for the template type, as shown here. But I failed to implement a structure that would accept (almost) arbitrary construct as a template argument.
The "best" approach I have reached so far uses template template argument. It compiles, but it does not fit the case when the argument substitution should be well formed.
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename T = void, typename...>
using Enable = T;
template <bool Cond, typename T = void>
using Enable_if = typename std::enable_if<Cond, T>::type;
template <typename T, template<typename> class X, typename = void>
struct Is_enabled : std::false_type {};
template <typename T, template<typename> class X>
struct Is_enabled<T, X, Enable<X<T>>> : std::true_type {};
/// An example of construct
template <typename T>
using Equals = decltype(std::declval<T>() == std::declval<T>());
template <typename T>
using Enabled_eq = Enable_if<Is_enabled<T, Equals>::value>;
template <typename T>
using Disabled_eq = Enable_if<!Is_enabled<T, Equals>::value>;
template <typename T>
Enabled_eq<T> foo()
{
std::cerr << "enabled!" << std::endl;
}
template <typename T>
Disabled_eq<T> foo()
{
std::cerr << "disabled!" << std::endl;
}
struct A {};
int main(int /*argc*/, const char* /*argv*/[])
{
foo<int>(); /// should print "enabled!"
foo<A>(); /// should print "disabled!"
return 0;
}
In case of int, it should obviously print "enabled!", and in case of A it should print "disabled!". But it always prints "disabled!", so the specialization of Is_enabled is never done.
Am I somewhat close to a correct solution, or will it be more complicated?
The third template parameter of Is_enabled defaults to void. This is what the compiler will use in the Is_enabled<T, Equals> instantiation. That is, Is_enabled<T, X, Enable<X<T>>> : std::true_type {}; can be used only if Enable<X<T>> evaluates to void. By explicitly passing a template argument X<T> to class template Enable declared as:
template <typename T = void, typename...>
using Enable = T;
you actually create an alias for X<T> itself, and the void type (the default one, needed for the dispatching to work) is not used at all. In your case, X<T> is the result of the decltype specifier. For foo<A>() it does lead to instantiation failure. For foo<int>(), however, you get the result type of integers comparison which is bool. That is, although there is no subsitution failure, the compiler cannot use the class template specialization, because it is specialized for void, not bool.
In order to fix the code, you should rewrite Enable to always result with void:
template <typename...>
using Enable = void;
This is also known as std::void_t.

C++ SFINAE with decltype: substitution failure becomes an error?

This code works:
// Code A
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <type_traits>
using namespace std;
template <typename T>
struct S {
template <typename Iter, typename = typename enable_if<is_constructible<T, decltype(*(declval<Iter>()))>::value>::type>
S(Iter) { cout << "S(Iter)" << endl; }
S(int) { cout << "S(int)" << endl; }
};
int main()
{
vector<int> v;
S<int> s1(v.begin()); // stdout: S(Iter)
S<int> s2(1); // stdout: S(int)
}
But this code below doesn't work. In the code below, I merely want to inherit std::enable_if, so the class is_iter_of will have member typedef type if the selected version of std::enable_if has member typedef type.
// Code B
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <type_traits>
using namespace std;
template <typename Iter, typename Target>
struct is_iter_of : public enable_if<is_constructible<Target, decltype(*(declval<Iter>()))>::value> {}
template <typename T>
struct S {
template <typename Iter, typename = typename is_iter_of<Iter, T>::type>
S(Iter) { cout << "S(Iter)" << endl; }
S(int) { cout << "S(int)" << endl; }
};
int main()
{
vector<int> v;
S<int> s1(v.begin());
S<int> s2(1); // this is line 22, error
}
Error message:
In instantiation of 'struct is_iter_of<int, int>':
12:30: required by substitution of 'template<class Iter, class> S<T>::S(Iter) [with Iter = int; <template-parameter-1-2> = <missing>]'
22:16: required from here
8:72: error: invalid type argument of unary '*' (have 'int')
The error message is bewildering: of course I want the template substitution to fail.. so the correct constructor could be selected. Why didn't SFINAE work in Code B? If invalid type argument of unary '*' (have 'int') offends the compiler, the compiler should have issued a same error for Code A as well.
The problem is that the expression *int (*(declval<Iter>())) is invalid, so your template fails. You need to another level of templating, so I suggest a void_t approach:
make is_iter_of by a concept-lite that derives from true_type or fals_type
use enable_if within the definition of your class to enable the iterator constructor.
The key thing to understand is that your constructor before needed a type for typename is_iter_of<Iter, T>::type except that your enable_if in the struct is_iter_of caused the entire thing to be ill-formed. And since there was no fall-back template you had a compiler error.
template<class...>
using voider = void;
template <typename Iter, typename Target, typename = void>
struct is_iter_of : std::false_type{};
template <typename Iter, typename Target>
struct is_iter_of<Iter, Target, voider<decltype(*(declval<Iter>()))>> : std::is_constructible<Target, decltype(*(declval<Iter>()))> {};
template <typename T>
struct S {
template <typename Iter, typename std::enable_if<is_iter_of<Iter, T>::value, int>::type = 0>
S(Iter) { cout << "S(Iter)" << endl; }
S(int) { cout << "S(int)" << endl; }
};
Demo (C++11)
What's happening
The additional voider makes the template specialization not preferred if *(declval<Iter>()) is an ill-formed expression (*int) and so the fallback base template (std::false_type) is chosen.
Else, it will derived from std::is_constructible``. In other words, it can still derive fromstd::false_typeif the expression is well-formed but it's not constructibe, andtrue_type` otherwise.
The thing is you're trying to extend from std::enable_if, but the expression you put inside the enable if may be invalid. Since you are using a class that inherit form that, the class you instanciate inherit from an invalid expression, hence the error.
An easy solution for having a name for your enable_if expression would be to use an alias instead of a class:
template <typename Iter, typename Target>
using is_iter_of = enable_if<is_constructible<Target, decltype(*(declval<Iter>()))>::value>;
SFINAE will still work as expected with an alias.
This is because instancing an alias is part of the function you try to apply SFINAE on. With inheritance, the expression is part of the class being instanciated, not the function. This is why you got a hard error.
The thing is, the is multiple ways SFINAE is applied in your case. Let's take a look at where SFINAE can happen:
enable_if< // here -------v
is_constructible<Target, decltype(*(declval<Iter>()))>::value
>::type
// ^--- here
Indeed, SFINAE will happen because enable_if::type will not exist if the bool parameter is false, causing SFINAE.
But if you look closely, another type might not exist: decltype(*(std::declval<Iter>())). If Iter is int, asking for the type of the star operator makes no sense. So SFINAE if applied there too.
Your solution with inheritance would have work if every class you send as Iter had the * operator available. Since with int it does not exist, you are sending a non existing type to std::is_constructible, making the whole expression forming the base class invalid.
With the alias, the whole expression of using std::enable_if is subject to apply SFINAE. Whereas the base class approach will only apply SFINAE on the result of std::enable_if.

SFINAE and template function instantiation: Why a template argument cannot be deduced when used in function arguments with a SFINAE-enabled type?

I was experimenting with SFINAE these days, and something puzzles me. Why my_type_a cannot be deduced in my_function's instantiation?
class my_type_a {};
template <typename T>
class my_common_type {
public:
constexpr static const bool valid = false;
};
template <>
class my_common_type<my_type_a> {
public:
constexpr static const bool valid = true;
using type = my_type_a;
};
template <typename T> using my_common_type_t = typename my_common_type<T>::type;
template <typename T, typename V>
void my_function(my_common_type_t<T> my_cvalue, V my_value) {}
int main(void) {
my_function(my_type_a(), 1.0);
}
G++ gives me this:
/home/flisboac/test-template-template-arg-subst.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
/home/flisboac/test-template-template-arg-subst.cpp:21:30: error: no matching function for call to ‘my_function(my_type_a, double)’
my_function(my_type_a(), 1.0);
^
/home/flisboac/test-template-template-arg-subst.cpp:18:6: note: candidate: template<class T, class V> void my_function(my_common_type_t<T>, V)
void my_function(my_common_type_t<T> my_type, V my_value) {}
^~~~~~~~~~~
/home/flisboac/test-template-template-arg-subst.cpp:18:6: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
/home/flisboac/test-template-template-arg-subst.cpp:21:30: note: couldn't deduce template parameter ‘T’
my_function(my_type_a(), 1.0);
^
What I expected was that, when calling my_function as I did in main, T would be deduced to the type of the function's first argument, and that type would be used in the function's instantiation. But it seems that my_common_type_t<T> is instantiated before the function, but even then, the type of my_cvalue would become my_type_a anyways, so I cannot see why this wouldn't work...
Is there a different way to do this? Should I just avoid two (or more) levels of template indirection?
Well, consider this:
template <>
struct my_common_type<int> {
constexpr static const bool valid = true;
using type = my_type_a;
};
template <>
struct my_common_type<double> {
constexpr static const bool valid = true;
using type = my_type_a;
};
// ...
int main(void) {
my_function(my_type_a{}, 1.0);
}
Does the compiler chooses my_common_type<int> or my_common_type<double>?
If the language would permit deduction in you case, it would have to match what T would be in my_common_type<T>::type in order to yield the exact type you send to the function parameter. Obviously, it's not only impossible, but with my example above, it may have multiple choices!
Fortunately, there is a way to tell the compiler that my_common_type<T> will always yield to T. The basics of the trick is this:
template<typename T>
using test_t = T;
template<typename T>
void call(test_t<T>) {}
int main() {
call(1);
}
What is T deduces to? int, easy! The compiler is happy with this kind of match. Also, since test_t cannot be specialized, test_t<soxething> is known to only be something.
Also, this is working too with multiple levels of aliases:
template<typename T>
using test_t = T;
template<typename T>
using test2_t = test_t<T>;
template<typename T>
void call(test2_t<T>) {}
int main() {
call(1); // will also work
}
We can apply this to your case, but we will need some tool:
template<typename T, typename...>
using first_t = T;
This is the same easy match as above, but we can also send some argument that will not be used. We will make sfinae in this unused pack.
Now, rewrite my_common_type_t to still be an easy match, whilst adding the constraint in the unused pack:
template <typename T>
using my_common_type_t = first_t<T, typename my_common_type<T>::type>;
Note that this is also working:
template <typename T>
using my_common_type_t = first_t<T, std::enable_if_t<my_common_type<T>::valid>>;
Now deduction will happen as expected! Live (GCC) Live (Clang)
Note that this trick will only work with C++14, as sfinae in this case (dropped parameters) is only guaranteed to happen since C++14.
Also note that you should either use struct for your trait, or use public: to make the member my_common_type<T>::type public, or else GCC will output a bogus error.