I am trying to understand type function in template metaprogramming trough some examples.
I have created one example that removes the reference from a type.
template <class T>
struct remove_reference
{ using type = T; };
template <class T>
struct remove_reference<T&>
{ using type = T; };
int main(){
typename remove_reference<int&>::type a;
}
My question is if this is implemented using partial template specialization of if we call it something else?
I feel it is partial because we have not defined it for a specific type but I also feel it isn't because we have just as many template arguments.
The naming may not be important to understanding type functions but I don't want to teach other people the wrong names if I explain it.
Yes, it is partial specialisation, because you have restricted to just things that match the pattern T&.
You don't need to have fewer template parameters, you can even have more. E.g.
template <typename Callable>
struct function_something { ... }; // Any functor type
template <typename Ret, typename Args...>
struct function_something<Ret(Args...)> { ... }; // Specialises free functions
template <typename Class, typename Ret, typename Args...>
struct function_something<Ret(Class::*)(Args...)> { ... }; // Specialises member functions
Related
I needed a type trait that decays enums to their underlying type, and works the same as decay_t for all other types. I've written the following code, and apparently this is not how SFINAE works. But it is how I thought it should work, so what exactly is the problem with this code and what's the gap in my understanding of C++?
namespace detail {
template <typename T, std::enable_if_t<!std::is_enum_v<T>>* = nullptr>
struct BaseType {
using Type = std::decay_t<T>;
};
template <typename T, std::enable_if_t<std::is_enum_v<T>>* = nullptr>
struct BaseType {
using Type = std::underlying_type_t<T>;
};
}
template <class T>
using base_type_t = typename detail::BaseType<T>::Type;
The error in MSVC is completely unintelligible:
'detail::BaseType': template parameter '__formal' is incompatible with
the declaration
In GCC it's a bit better - says that declarations of the second template parameter are incompatible between the two BaseType templates. But according to my understanding of SFINAE, only one should be visible at all for any given T and the other one should be malformed thanks to enable_if.
Godbolt link
SFINAE applied to class templates is primarily about choosing between partial specialisations of the template. The problem in your snippet is that there are no partial specialisations in sight. You define two primary class templates, with the same template name. That's a redefinition error.
To make it work, we should restructure the relationship between the trait implementations in such as way that they specialise the same template.
namespace detail {
template <typename T, typename = void> // Non specialised case
struct BaseType {
using Type = std::decay_t<T>;
};
template <typename T>
struct BaseType<T, std::enable_if_t<std::is_enum_v<T>>> {
using Type = std::underlying_type_t<T>;
};
}
template <class T>
using base_type_t = typename detail::BaseType<T>::Type;
The specialisation provides a void type for the second argument (just like the primary would be instantiated with). But because it does so in a "special way", partial ordering considers it more specialised. When substitution fails (we don't pass an enum), the primary becomes the fallback.
You can provide as many such specialisation as you want, so long as the second template argument is always void, and all specialisations have mutually exclusive conditions.
BaseType isn't being partial-specialized, you're just redeclaring it, and since the non-type parameter has a different type, the compilation fails. you might want to do
#include <type_traits>
namespace detail {
template <typename T, bool = std::is_enum_v<T>>
struct BaseType;
template <typename T>
struct BaseType<T, false> {
using Type = std::decay_t<T>;
};
template <typename T>
struct BaseType<T, true> {
using Type = std::underlying_type_t<T>;
};
}
You declare the same struct with different parameter, which is forbidden.
You can do it with partial specialization:
namespace detail {
template <typename T, typename Enabler = void>
struct BaseType {
using Type = std::decay_t<T>;
};
template <typename E>
struct BaseType<E, std::enable_if_t<std::is_enum_v<E>>>
{
using Type = std::underlying_type_t<E>;
};
}
Demo
With concepts, C++20 provides nice syntax like
template<typename T>
concept SomeConcept = true; // stuff here
template<typename T>
requires SomeConcept<T>
class Foo;
template<SomeConcept T>
class Foo;
where the two ways of concept restricting the class are equivalent, but the latter is just more concise.
If i now have some template template concept like
template<template<typename> typename T>
concept SomeOtherConcept = true; // stuff here
template<template<typename> typename T>
requires SomeOtherConcept<T>
class Foo;
i do not know the non-verbose (concise / short) syntax for this without an requirement clause, as things like
template<template<typename> SomeotherConcept T>
class Foo;
template<template<SomeOtherConcept> typename T>
class Foo;
did not work, so
What is the correct syntax for declaring such a template template class with a concept restriction to the template template parameter?
What is the correct syntax for declaring such a template template class with a concept restriction to the template template parameter?
The only way to write a constraint that depends on a template template parameter or a non-type template parameter is with a requires-clause. The shorter type-constraint syntax is only available for concepts that constrain types (hence the name type-constraint):
template <typename T> concept Type = true;
template <template <typename...> class Z> concept Template = true;
template <auto V> concept Value = true;
// requires-clause always works
template <typename T> requires Type<T> struct A { };
template <template <typename...> class Z> requires Template<Z> struct B { };
template <auto V> requires Value<V> struct C { };
// type-constraint only for type concepts
template <Type T> struct D { };
// abbreviated function template definitely only for type concepts
void e(Type auto x);
This is a trick that I have used before.
Define a lambda in the primary expression using a noop-like function as shown:
void noop(auto) {}
//...
template<typename T>
concept SomeConcept = true;
/*
template <template<typename>SomeConcept T>
struct Example {};
*/ //does not work
template <template<typename>typename T>
requires requires() {
{
noop(
[]<typename TArg> requires SomeConcept<typename T<TArg>> (){}
)
};
}
struct Example {};
I was wondering whether it's possible to make a list containing template template parameters, like
template <
template <typename...> class TTP0,
template <typename...> class... TTPs
>
struct TTP_List : TTP_List<TTPs...> {};
A problem I encountered is that I did not know a good way to access the elements of the list, that is, TTP0. I would like to use type aliases, typedef or using. I however know this is not possible, because the template template parameters are not types and must therefor not be treated as such.
A approach I could imagine working is making explicit structs to read the data and make it use specializations, such as:
template <template <typename...> class>
struct container_TTPs;
template <template <typename...> class TTP>
struct container_TTPs<std::vector> {};
However, this approach seems very explicit. Is there a way to accomplish this recognition without this use of template specialization?
Feel free to ask if I need to elaborate.
EDIT: For example, I want to be able to use certain expressions for every held type, such as TestClass<TTP_List<std::vector, std::list>>::value, where TestClass uses the std::vector and the std::list, without requiring a variadic template within TestClass, so that multiple TTP_Lists can be passed.
I don't understand what do you mean with "access the elements of the list".
It seems to me that you should give us an example of what do you want, concretely, do accessing elements of the list.
Anyway, as you can use using to "access" (?) typenames
template <typename T0, typename ... Ts>
struct foo
{
using type = T0;
};
you can use a template using to "access" (?) a template-template parameter as follows
template <template <typename...> class T0,
template <typename...> class ... Ts>
struct foo
{
template <typename ... As>
using templ_type = T0<As...>;
};
and you can use it in this way
// vi is a std::vector<int>
foo<std::vector, std::set, std::map>::templ_type<int> vi { 0, 1, 2 };
The problem (a problem) is that a template parameter variadic list (isn't important if of typenames, of values or of template-templates) must be in last position.
So
template <typename ... Ts, typename T0>
struct foo
{ };
is wrong, because Ts... must be in last position, and
template <typename T0, typename ... Ts>
struct foo
{ };
is correct.
With template-template parameters,
template <template <typename ...> class ... Ts,
template <typename ...> class T0>
struct foo
{ };
is wrong where
template <template <typename ...> class T0,
template <typename ...> class ... Ts>
struct foo
{ };
is correct.
Is there any way to make a template specialization for fundamental types only?
I have tried to do the following:
template<typename T, typename = typename std::enable_if<!std::is_fundamental<T>::value>::type>
class foo
{
}
template<typename T, typename = typename std::enable_if<std::is_fundamental<T>::value>::type>
class foo
{
}
But I'm getting an error that the template is already defined.
Here you are creating two templated classes with the same name, not specializations.
You need to create a generic one and then specialize it:
// not specialized template (for non-fundamental types), Enabler will
// be used to specialize for fundamental types
template <class T, class Enabler = void>
class foo { };
// specialization for fundamental types
template <class T>
class foo<T, std::enable_if_t<std::is_fundamental<T>::value>> { };
I cant figure out how to specialize partially this template. compiler complains that template parameter N is not used in partial specialization
#include <boost/multi_array.hpp>
template<typename T, class A>
struct adaptable;
template<typename T, size_t N>
struct adaptable<T,
// line below is the problem
typename boost::multi_array<T,N>::template array_view<2>::type>
{
typedef typename boost::multi_array<T,N>::template array_view<2>::type type;
};
I can add dummy template parameter just to silence compiler.
template<typename T, class A, class A0 = A>
struct adaptable;
template<typename T, size_t N>
struct adaptable<T,
typename boost::multi_array<T,N>::template array_view<2>::type,
boost::multi_array<T,N> >
{
typedef typename boost::multi_array<T,N>::template array_view<2>::type type;
};
is there more straightforward way?
I don't see anything in your example that looks like partial specialization. A partial specialization is a specialization that specifies exact types for some if the base template parameters, but leaves others open. For example:
template <class T, class U>
struct my_template {
// the base template where both T and U are generic
};
template <class T>
struct my_template<int> {
// A partial specialization where T is still generic, but U == int
};
To support partial specialization, the base template has to have at least two template parameters (call the number N). The partially specialized template can have 1..N-1 template parameters. The partial specialization must be located where the compiler will already have "seen" the base template before attempting to compile the partial specialization. The partial specialization is written as a completely separate template from the base template (though the base template and all specializations must have the same name, of course).