Related
I have a template whose template parameter represents a functional. That functional is called within the template, and the result of the functional should be stored, like this:
template <class F>
class C {
F f;
/* type see below */ cached;
// ... somewhere ...
cached = f();
};
I would like to retrieve the stored value later. Now, the template is supposed to work even if f returns void. Since I cannot generate variables of type void, the cached value should be of a void_placeholder_t type. Hence my class should look as follows:
template <class F>
class C {
F f;
result_after_void_replacement_t<F()> cached;
// ... somewhere ...
cached = invoke_and_replace_void (f);
};
Now I worked the whole afternoon on this problem and came up with the below solution. Honestly, I doubt that this problem is uncommon -- so isn't there a standard solution?
[Sorry, lengthy. Example given at the end.]
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <functional>
struct void_placeholder_t {};
// dummy type, since we do not want to overload comma for void_placeholder_t
struct void_replacer { };
// overload comma to return either t oder void_replacer {}
// (uses that if first argument is void, overload is not called)
template <class T>
constexpr decltype(auto) operator , (T && t, void_replacer) {
return std::forward<T> (t);
}
//
// replace_void
// helper transforming a void_replacer into a void_placeholder_t
template <class T>
constexpr decltype(auto) replace_void (T && t) {
return std::forward<T> (t);
}
constexpr void_placeholder_t replace_void (void_replacer) {
return void_placeholder_t {};
}
//
// remove_rvalue_reference
//
template<class T> struct remove_rvalue_reference { using type = T; };
template<class T> struct remove_rvalue_reference<T &&> { using type = T; };
template <class T> using remove_rvalue_reference_t
= typename remove_rvalue_reference<T>::type;
//
// result_after_void_replacement, result_after_void_replacement_t
//
template <class S> struct result_after_void_replacement;
template <class F, class ... Args>
struct result_after_void_replacement <F (Args ...)> {
using type
= remove_rvalue_reference_t < decltype (
replace_void(
( std::declval<F> () (std::declval<Args> () ...),
void_replacer {} ) )
) >;
};
template <class S>
using result_after_void_replacement_t = typename
result_after_void_replacement<S>::type;
//
// invoke_and_replace_void
//
template <class F, class ... Args>
constexpr result_after_void_replacement_t<F && (Args &&...)>
invoke_and_replace_void (F && f, Args && ... args)
{
return replace_void(
( std::forward<F> (f) (std::forward<Args> (args) ...),
void_replacer {} ) );
}
// example
void f(double) { }
double g(double d) { return d + 11.0; }
int main() {
// conversion, without invoke_and_replace_void
auto xf = replace_void ( (f(42.0), void_replacer {}) );
std::cout << typeid(xf).name () << std::endl;
auto xg = replace_void ( (g(42.0), void_replacer {}) );
std::cout << typeid(xg).name () << " " << xg << std::endl;
// conversion, with invoke_and_replace_void and no type deduction
using F = void (double);
result_after_void_replacement_t<F& (double)> zf =
invoke_and_replace_void (f, 42.0);
std::cout << typeid(zf).name () << std::endl;
using G = double (double);
result_after_void_replacement_t<G& (double)> zg =
invoke_and_replace_void (g, 42.0);
std::cout << typeid(zg).name () << " " << zg << std::endl;
return 0;
}
There is no standard solution as in "something which is in the C++ standard". There was an attempt to support "Regular Void" which wasn't favored by the Evolution Working Group at the October 2015 meeting.
The usual approach is to deal with situations where function object may return void and the value would be processed using specialization. Especially when the function template in question is relatively complex and the common parts can't be factored easily, this approach is unfortunately rather annoying.
This should work for your case
template <class F, bool>
class C_helper{
public:
F f;
/* type see below */ cached;
// ... somewhere ...
cached = f();
};
template <class F>
class C_helper<F, true> {
public:
F f;
// ... somewhere ...
f();
};
template <class F>
class C: public C_helper<F, std::is_void<std::result_of<F()>>::value> {
};
This works fine:
template <typename Fn, typename RET, typename... Args >
struct Cache
{
Cache( Fn f ) : _fn(f) {}
const RET& operator()(Args ...args)
{
_cache = _fn( std::forward<Args>( args ) ... );
return _cache;
}
Fn _fn;
RET _cache;
};
template <typename Fn, typename... Args >
struct Cache< Fn, void, Args...>
{
Cache( Fn f ) : _fn(f) {}
void operator()(Args ...args)
{
_fn( std::forward<Args>( args ) ... );
}
Fn _fn;
};
template <typename Fn, typename... Args >
using C = Cache< Fn, typename std::result_of< Fn( Args... ) >::type, Args... >;
void f(double) { }
double g(double d) { return d + 11.0; }
C<decltype(&g), double> cache_g(g);
double res = cache_g( 1.0 );
C<decltype(&f), double> cache_f(f);
cache_f( 2.0 );
When you defined a template in C++ (with type parameter) you can pass as type actually a pointer to a type, for example:
MyClass<Foo*>... // edited
I wonder if this is really used? Because such question is too broad, let's focus on core C++, meaning -- is it used in STL or Boost? If yes (in STL/Boost) for what purpose?
Please note that I am asking about passing pointer as an argument (from OUTSIDE). Using pointer to passed argument INSIDE template is another story, and I don't ask about that.
Update
The difference between passing a pointer and using a pointer.
Take a look at those posts:
How is vector implemented in C++ and
passing pointer type to template argument .
myname<char*>(...
myname is a function. The type which is passed to template (template, not a function) is pointer to char.
Now, using a pointer inside:
template <class T...
class vector {
private:
T* data_;
You pass an int (for example) but nothing stops the template of using a pointer to it.
I am interested in the first, not the second, case.
A pointer is just a type, so anywhere you can use some_template<T> you might also want to use some_template<T*>
The parts of the standard library based in the STL use std::iterator_traits<Iter> in many places, and Iter might be a pointer type.
Some implementations of std::unique_ptr<T, D> use a data member of type std::tuple<T*, D> (e.g. this is true for GCC's implementation, but this is an implementation detail that you should not care about).
Like I commented, I remembered a use case where functions would be registered as event callbacks by their actual address.
This way the trampoline functions to invoke member functions would be generated statically for each member function registered.
I'm not sure this is something I'd actually have a use for, but it does demonstrate a (contrived?) way in which pointer-to-function template arguments can be used.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
const static auto null = nullptr;
template<typename TFuncSignature>
class Callback;
template<typename R, typename A1>
class Callback<R (A1)> {
public:
typedef R (*TFunc)(void*, A1);
Callback() : obj(0), func(0) {}
Callback(void* o, TFunc f) : obj(o), func(f) {}
R operator()(A1 a1) const {
return (*func)(obj, a1);
}
typedef void* Callback::*SafeBoolType;
operator SafeBoolType () const {
return func != 0? &Callback::obj : 0;
}
bool operator! () const {
return func == 0;
}
bool operator== ( const Callback<R (A1)>& right ) const {
return obj == right.obj && func == right.func;
}
bool operator!= ( const Callback<R (A1)>& right ) const {
return obj != right.obj || func != right.func;
}
private:
void* obj;
TFunc func;
};
template<typename R, class T, typename A1>
struct DeduceMemCallbackTag {
template<R (T::*Func)(A1)>
static R Wrapper(void* o, A1 a1) {
return (static_cast<T*>(o)->*Func)(a1);
}
template<R (T::*Func)(A1)>
inline static Callback<R (A1)> Bind(T* o) {
return Callback<R (A1)>(o, &DeduceMemCallbackTag::Wrapper<Func>);
}
};
template<typename R, typename A1>
struct DeduceStaticCallbackTag {
template<R (*Func)(A1)>
static R Wrapper(void*, A1 a1) {
return (*Func)(a1);
}
template<R (*Func)(A1)>
inline static Callback<R (A1)> Bind( ) {
return Callback<R (A1)>( 0, &DeduceStaticCallbackTag::Wrapper<Func> );
}
};
template<typename R, class T, typename A1>
DeduceMemCallbackTag<R, T, A1> DeduceMemCallback(R (T::*)(A1)) {
return DeduceMemCallbackTag<R, T, A1>();
}
template<typename R, typename A1>
DeduceStaticCallbackTag<R, A1> DeduceStaticCallback(R (*)(A1)) {
return DeduceStaticCallbackTag<R, A1>();
}
template <typename T1> class Event {
public:
typedef void(* TSignature)( T1 );
typedef Callback<void( T1 )> TCallback;
protected:
std::vector<TCallback> invocations;
std::vector<Event<T1>*> events;
public:
const static int ExpectedFunctorCount = 2;
Event () : invocations(), events() {
invocations.reserve( ExpectedFunctorCount );
events.reserve( ExpectedFunctorCount );
}
template <void (* TFunc)(T1)> void Add ( ) {
TCallback c = DeduceStaticCallback( TFunc ).template Bind< TFunc >( );
invocations.push_back( c );
}
template <typename T, void (T::* TFunc)(T1)> void Add ( T& object ) {
Add<T, TFunc>( &object );
}
template <typename T, void (T::* TFunc)(T1)> void Add ( T* object ) {
TCallback c = DeduceMemCallback( TFunc ).template Bind< TFunc >( object );
invocations.push_back( c );
}
void Invoke ( T1 t1 ) {
size_t i;
for ( i = 0; i < invocations.size(); ++i ) {
invocations[i]( t1 );
}
for ( i = 0; i < events.size(); ++i ) {
(*events[i])( t1 );
}
}
void operator() ( T1 t1 ) {
Invoke( t1 );
}
size_t InvocationCount ( ) {
return events.size( ) + invocations.size( );
}
template <void (* TFunc)(T1)> bool Remove ( ) {
TCallback target = DeduceStaticCallback( TFunc ).template Bind< TFunc >( );
for ( size_t i = 0; i < invocations.size(); ++i ) {
TCallback& inv = invocations[i];
if ( target == inv ) {
invocations.erase( invocations.begin() + i );
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
template <typename T, void (T::* TFunc)(T1)> bool Remove ( T& object ) {
return Remove<T, TFunc>( &object );
}
template <typename T, void (T::* TFunc)(T1)> bool Remove ( T* object ) {
TCallback target = DeduceMemCallback( TFunc ).template Bind< TFunc >( object );
for ( size_t i = 0; i < invocations.size(); ++i ) {
TCallback& inv = invocations[i];
if ( target == inv ) {
invocations.erase( invocations.begin() + i );
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
};
namespace IntStatic {
void VoidTest () { std::cout << "INTO THE VOID" << std::endl; }
void IntTest (int num) { std::cout << "Got myself a " << num << " !" << std::endl; }
void IntTest2 (int num) { std::cout << "Now _I_ Got myself a " << num << " !" << std::endl; }
}
struct Int {
void Test (int num) { std::cout << num << " on the inside of a class... ?" << std::endl; }
void Test2 (int num) { std::cout << num << " on the inside of a struct, yo !" << std::endl; }
static void Test3(int snum) { std::cout << snum << " on the inside of a class... ?" << std::endl; }
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
Event<int> intev;
Int i;
intev.Add<Int, &Int::Test>(i);
intev.Add<&IntStatic::IntTest>();
intev.Add<&IntStatic::IntTest2>();
//intev.Add( Int::Test3 );
intev(20);
intev.Remove<&IntStatic::IntTest>();
intev.Remove<&IntStatic::IntTest>();
intev.Remove<Int, &Int::Test>(i);
//intev.Remove( Int::Test3 );
//intev.Remove( i, &Int::Test );
intev(20);
return 0;
}
The actual code is famously written by #ThePhD, credits to him. See it Live on Coliru
You could have different semantics by specialization, e.g.:
template <typename T> struct referred_sizeof {
static constexpr size_t value = sizeof(T);
};
Now, this could be specialized:
template <typename T> struct referred_sizeof<T*> {
static constexpr size_t value = sizeof(T);
};
template <typename T> struct referred_sizeof <boost::optional<T*> > {
static constexpr size_t value = sizeof(boost::optional<T*>) + sizeof(T);
};
Which makes the behaviour:
static_assert(referred_sizeof <int>::value == referred_sizeof <int*>::value, "passes");
This application is what others referred to in comments as implementing traits classes.
Full sample, adding specialization for boost::tuple<...> just for fun: See it Live On Coliru
int main()
{
report<double>();
report<double *>();
report<boost::optional<double> >();
report<boost::optional<double> *>();
report<boost::optional<double *> *>();
report<boost::tuple<boost::optional<double *> *, double> >();
}
Prints
void report() [with T = double]: referred_sizeof is 8
void report() [with T = double*]: referred_sizeof is 8
void report() [with T = boost::optional<double>]: referred_sizeof is 16
void report() [with T = boost::optional<double>*]: referred_sizeof is 16
void report() [with T = boost::optional<double*>*]: referred_sizeof is 24
void report() [with T = boost::tuples::tuple<boost::optional<double*>*, double>]: referred_sizeof is 40
Full implementation for reference
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/optional.hpp>
#include <boost/tuple/tuple.hpp>
template <typename... Ts> struct referred_sizeof;
// base cases
template <typename T> struct referred_sizeof<T> {
static constexpr size_t value = sizeof(T);
};
template <typename T> struct referred_sizeof<T*> {
static constexpr size_t value = referred_sizeof<T>::value;
};
template <typename T> struct referred_sizeof<boost::optional<T*> > {
static constexpr size_t value = sizeof(boost::optional<T*>) + referred_sizeof<T>::value;
};
template <typename... Ts> struct referred_sizeof<boost::tuple<Ts...> > {
static constexpr size_t value = referred_sizeof<Ts...>::value; // TODO take into account padding/alignment overhead?
};
static_assert(referred_sizeof<int>::value == referred_sizeof<int*>::value, "passes");
template <typename T1, typename... Ts> struct referred_sizeof<T1, Ts...> {
static constexpr size_t value = referred_sizeof<T1>::value + referred_sizeof<Ts...>::value;
};
template <typename T>
void report()
{
std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << ": referred_sizeof is " << referred_sizeof<T>::value << "\n";
}
I'm looking for a way to pass function pointers, functors or lambdas to a template function g which uses the passed function's argument types, for example:
template<class T1, class T2, class T3>
struct wrapper_t {
boost::function<void(T1,T2,T3)> f;
wrapper_t( boost::function<void(T1,T2,T3)> f ) : f(f) {}
void operator( std::vector<T1> &a, std::vector<T2> &b, T3 c ) {
assert(a.size() == b.size());
for(size_t i = 0 ; i != a.size() ; i++) f(a[i], b[i], c);
}
};
template<class T1, class T2, class T3>
wrapper_t<T1,T2,T3> make_wrapper( boost::function<void(T1,T2,T3)> f ) {
return wrapper_t<T1,T2,T3>( f );
}
void f(int, double, char) {};
wrapper_t<int, double, char> w0(f); // need to repeat types
auto w1 = make_wrapper(f); // more comfortable
std::vector<int> a{{1, 2, 3}};
std::vector<double> b{{1.0, 2.0, 3.0}};
w0( a, b, 'c' );
w1( a, b, 'c' );
The make_wrapper function only exists to extract the types from the argument, some syntactic sugar to avoid having to type them twice.
A minimal example for my problem is this function:
template<class T>
void g1( const boost::function<void(T)> & ) {}
Using these as input
void f1(int) {}
struct f2_t { void operator()(int) {} };
it fails to infer T=int
f2_t f2;
g1( f1 ); // mismatched types ‘const std::function<void(T)>’ and ‘void(int)’
g1( f2 ); // ‘f2_t’ is not derived from ‘const std::function<void(T)>’
g1( [](int){} ); // ‘::<lambda(int)>’ is not derived from ‘…
g1<int>( f1 ); // ok
g1<int>( f2 ); // ok
g1<int>( [](int){} ); // ok
But T=int can be inferred from a plain function pointer, but of this doesn't work with the functor or lambda either:
template<class T>
void g2( void (*)(T) ) {}
g2( f1 ); // ok
g2( f2 ); // mismatched types …
g2<int>( f2 ); // ok
g2( [](int){} ); // mismatched types …
g2<int>( [](int){} ); // ok
Is there a way to infer T not just for plain function pointers but for functors and lambdas, too?
Or does it have to be something like this?
template<class F>
void g( F ) { typedef first_argument_of<F>::type T; }
(in my real code I need to deconstruct a function with four arguments this way, but std::function::…argument_type only exists for one or two arguments; boost::function has argN_type, but I don't think I can use that anyway since F is not always a function which is my problem, see above, etc)
There is no way to do what you want for a variety of reasons. But here is one that should make the problem pretty clear:
struct function_object
{
template<typename ...T>
void operator ()(T&&... v){}
};
f( function_object{} );
What is the type of the arguments of the function object passed to f? There isn't any, it can be called with any kind and number of arguments.
I also think there is no direct way to define the template parameters and function arguments of a single, primary template definition such that T can be deduced in all the different situations (function pointer, lambda expression, std::function argument etc.).
I would therefore recommend that you follow the approach suggested at the end of your question. Indeed neither std::function nor the tools offered by Boost (as far as I know) will easily enable this, though.
What I use (and I learnt that from other SO posts in the past), is a rather complicated template function_traits with specializations for all the different cases. My definition is this:
template <typename T>
struct function_traits
: public function_traits<decltype(&T::operator())>
{ };
template <typename Return, typename... Args>
struct function_traits<Return(Args...)>
{
typedef std::size_t size_type;
typedef Return result_type;
typedef result_type function_type(Args...);
static constexpr size_type arity = sizeof...(Args);
template <size_type index>
struct arg
{
typedef typename std::tuple_element<index,std::tuple<Args...>>::type type;
};
static constexpr bool value = true;
};
template <typename Return, typename... Args>
struct function_traits<Return(*)(Args...)>
: function_traits<Return(Args...)>
{ };
template <typename Return, typename... Args>
struct function_traits<Return(&)(Args...)>
: function_traits<Return(Args...)>
{ };
template <typename Class, typename Return, typename... Args>
struct function_traits<Return(Class::*)(Args...)>
: function_traits<Return(Args...)>
{ };
template <typename Class, typename Return, typename... Args>
struct function_traits<Return(Class::*)(Args...) volatile>
: function_traits<Return(Args...)>
{ };
template <typename Class, typename Return, typename... Args>
struct function_traits<Return(Class::*)(Args...) const>
: function_traits<Return(Args...)>
{ };
template <typename Class, typename Return, typename... Args>
struct function_traits<Return(Class::*)(Args...) const volatile>
: function_traits<Return(Args...)>
{ };
To make using this even more convenient, you may want to define using-aliases:
template <typename Fun>
using result_of = typename function_traits<Fun>::result_type;
template <typename Fun, std::size_t index>
using arg = typename function_traits<Fun>::template arg<index>::type;
With all these definitions (which in the below, I assume you put into a separate header more_type_traits.hpp), you can then easily define your wrapper function as follows:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
#include <type_traits>
#include "more_type_traits.hpp"
template <typename Fun>
using noref = typename std::remove_reference<Fun>::type;
template <typename Fun>
result_of<noref<Fun>> fun(Fun &&argfun)
{
// Default-initialize the first argument
arg<noref<Fun>,0> arg {};
// Call the function
return argfun(arg);
}
The below (which is basically copied from your code) then compiles and works for me:
void f1(int i)
{ std::cout << "f1(" << i << ')' << std::endl; }
struct f2_t
{
void operator()(int i)
{ std::cout << "f2(" << i << ')' << std::endl; }
};
int main()
{
fun(f1);
f2_t f2;
fun(f2);
std::function<void(int)> funobj = [](int i)
{ std::cout << "funobj(" << i << ')' << std::endl; };
fun(funobj);
fun( [](int i) { std::cout << "lambda(" << i << ')' << std::endl; } );
return 0;
}
Clearly, the definition of function_traits is complicated, because many different specializations are required. But it's worth the effort if you want to make function wrapping convenient.
Lets suppose I read in a comment that the OP really wants to take a function that mutates a T, and turn it into a function that mutates a std::vector<T>, and thinks that in order to do this you need to know what T is.
You don't
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
template<typename Lambda>
struct container_version {
Lambda closure;
container_version( container_version const& ) = default;
container_version( container_version && ) = default;
container_version( container_version & ) = default;
template<typename U>
container_version( U&& func ):closure(std::forward<U>(func)) {};
// lets make this work on any iterable range:
template<typename Container>
void operator()( Container&& c ) const {
for( auto&& x:c )
closure(x);
}
};
template<typename Lambda>
container_version< typename std::decay<Lambda>::type >
make_container_version( Lambda&& closure ) {
return {std::forward<Lambda>(closure)};
}
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
#include <array>
int main() {
std::vector<int> my_vec = {0, 1, 2, 3};
for (auto x:my_vec)
std::cout << x << ",";
std::cout << "\n";
make_container_version( []( int& x ) { x++; })( my_vec );
for (auto x:my_vec)
std::cout << x << ",";
std::cout << "\n";
// hey look, we can store it in a `std::function` if we need to:
auto super_func = make_container_version( []( int& x ) { x++; } );
std::function< void( std::vector<int>& ) > func = super_func;
// and the same super_func can be used for a function on a different container:
std::function< void( std::array<int,7>& ) > func2 = super_func;
func(my_vec);
for (auto x:my_vec)
std::cout << x << ",";
std::cout << "\n";
}
In fact, taking the argument and turning it into a std::function, or forcing it to be stored in a std::function, costs efficiency, increases the complexity of the code, and makes it unable to do things that it has no problem doing.
The above version, before it is packed into a std::function, can operate on sets, lists, vectors , raw C arrays, std::arrays, etc.
I'm trying to create a function which can be called with a lambda that takes either 0, 1 or 2 arguments. Since I need the code to work on both g++ 4.5 and vs2010(which doesn't support variadic templates or lambda conversions to function pointers) the only idea I've come up with is to choose which implementation to call based on arity. The below is my non working guess at how this should look. Is there any way to fix my code or is there a better way to do this in general?
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
using namespace std;
template <class Func> struct arity;
template <class Func>
struct arity<Func()>{ static const int val = 0; };
template <class Func, class Arg1>
struct arity<Func(Arg1)>{ static const int val = 1; };
template <class Func, class Arg1, class Arg2>
struct arity<Func(Arg1,Arg2)>{ static const int val = 2; };
template<class F>
void bar(F f)
{
cout << arity<F>::val << endl;
}
int main()
{
bar([]{cout << "test" << endl;});
}
A lambda function is a class type with a single function call operator. You can thus detect the arity of that function call operator by taking its address and using overload resolution to select which function to call:
#include <iostream>
template<typename F,typename R>
void do_stuff(F& f,R (F::*mf)() const)
{
(f.*mf)();
}
template<typename F,typename R,typename A1>
void do_stuff(F& f,R (F::*mf)(A1) const)
{
(f.*mf)(99);
}
template<typename F,typename R,typename A1,typename A2>
void do_stuff(F& f,R (F::*mf)(A1,A2) const)
{
(f.*mf)(42,123);
}
template<typename F>
void do_stuff(F f)
{
do_stuff(f,&F::operator());
}
int main()
{
do_stuff([]{std::cout<<"no args"<<std::endl;});
do_stuff([](int a1){std::cout<<"1 args="<<a1<<std::endl;});
do_stuff([](int a1,int a2){std::cout<<"2 args="<<a1<<","<<a2<<std::endl;});
}
Be careful though: this won't work with function types, or class types that have more than one function call operator, or non-const function call operators.
I thought the following would work but it doesn't, I'm posting it for two reasons.
To save people the time if they had the same idea
If someone knows why this doesn't work, I'm not 100% sure I understand (although I have my suspicions)
Code follows:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
template <typename Ret>
unsigned arity(std::function<Ret()>) { return 0; }
template <typename Ret, typename A1>
unsigned arity(std::function<Ret(A1)>) { return 1; }
template <typename Ret, typename A1, typename A2>
unsigned arity(std::function<Ret(A1, A2)>) { return 2; }
// rinse and repeat
int main()
{
std::function<void(int)> f = [](int i) { }; // this binds fine
// Error: no matching function for call to 'arity(main()::<lambda(int)>)'
std::cout << arity([](int i) { });
}
Compile time means of obtaining the arity of a function or a function object, including that of a lambda:
int main (int argc, char ** argv) {
auto f0 = []() {};
auto f1 = [](int) {};
auto f2 = [](int, void *) {};
std::cout << Arity<decltype(f0)>::value << std::endl; // 0
std::cout << Arity<decltype(f1)>::value << std::endl; // 1
std::cout << Arity<decltype(f2)>::value << std::endl; // 2
std::cout << Arity<decltype(main)>::value << std::endl; // 2
}
template <typename Func>
class Arity {
private:
struct Any {
template <typename T>
operator T ();
};
template <typename T>
struct Id {
typedef T type;
};
template <size_t N>
struct Size {
enum { value = N };
};
template <typename F>
static Size<0> match (
F f,
decltype(f()) * = nullptr);
template <typename F>
static Size<1> match (
F f,
decltype(f(Any())) * = nullptr,
decltype(f(Any())) * = nullptr);
template <typename F>
static Size<2> match (
F f,
decltype(f(Any(), Any())) * = nullptr,
decltype(f(Any(), Any())) * = nullptr,
decltype(f(Any(), Any())) * = nullptr);
public:
enum { value = Id<decltype(match(static_cast<Func>(Any())))>::type::value };
};
This way works:
template<typename F>
auto call(F f) -> decltype(f(1))
{
return f(1);
}
template<typename F>
auto call(F f, void * fake = 0) -> decltype(f(2,3))
{
return f(2,3);
}
template<typename F>
auto call(F f, void * fake = 0, void * fake2 = 0) -> decltype(f(4,5,6))
{
return f(4,5,6);
}
int main()
{
auto x1 = call([](int a){ return a*10; });
auto x2 = call([](int a, int b){ return a*b; });
auto x3 = call([](int a, int b, int c){ return a*b*c; });
// x1 == 1*10
// x2 == 2*3
// x3 == 4*5*6
}
It works for all callable types (lambdas, functors, etc)
I am a newer for C++, and my first language is Chinese, so my words with English may be unmeaningful, say sorry first.
I know there is a way to write a function with variable parameters which number or type maybe different each calling, we can use the macros of va_list,va_start and va_end. But as everyone know, it is the C style. When we use the macros, we will lose the benefit of type-safe and auto-inference, then I try do it whit C++ template. My work is followed:
#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
#include<boost/any.hpp>
struct Argument
{
typedef boost::bad_any_cast bad_cast;
template<typename Type>
Argument& operator,(const Type& v)
{
boost::any a(v);
_args.push_back(a);
return *this;
}
size_t size() const
{
return _args.size();
}
template<typename Type>
Type value(size_t n) const
{
return boost::any_cast<Type>(_args[n]);
}
template<typename Type>
const Type* piont(size_t n) const
{
return boost::any_cast<Type>(&_args[n]);
}
private:
std::vector<boost::any> _args;
};
int sum(const Argument& arg)
{
int sum=0;
for(size_t s=0; s<arg.size(); ++s)
{
sum += arg.value<int>(s);
}
return sum;
}
int main()
{
std::cout << sum((Argument(), 1, 3, 4, 5)) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
I think it's ugly, I want to there is a way to do better? Thanks, and sorry for language errors.
You can do something like this:
template <typename T>
class sum{
T value;
public:
sum ()
: value() {};
// Add one argument
sum<T>& operator<<(T const& x)
{ value += x; return *this; }
// to get funal value
operator T()
{ return value;}
// need another type that's handled differently? Sure!
sum<T>& operator<<(double const& x)
{ value += 100*int(x); return *this; }
};
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << (sum<int>() << 5 << 1 << 1.5 << 19) << "\n";
return 0;
}
Such technique (operator overloading and stream-like function class) may solve different problems with variable arguments, not only this one. For example:
create_window() << window::caption - "Hey" << window::width - 5;
// height of the window and its other parameters are not set here and use default values
After giving it some thought, I found a way to do it using a typelist. You don't need an any type that way, and your code becomes type-safe.
It's based on building a template structure containing a head (of a known type) and a tail, which is again a typelist. I added some syntactic sugar to make it more intuitive: use like this:
// the 1 argument processing function
template< typename TArg > void processArg( const TArg& arg ) {
std::cout << "processing " << arg.value << std::endl;
}
// recursive function: processes
// the first argument, and calls itself again for
// the rest of the typelist
// (note: can be generalized to take _any_ function
template< typename TArgs >
void process( const TArgs& args ) {
processArg( args.head );
return process( args.rest );
}
template<> void process<VoidArg>( const VoidArg& arg ){}
int main() {
const char* p = "another string";
process( (arglist= 1, 1.2, "a string", p ) );
}
And here is the argument passing framework:
#include <iostream>
// wrapper to abstract away the difference between pointer types and value types.
template< typename T > struct TCont {
T value;
TCont( const T& t ):value(t){}
};
template<typename T, size_t N> struct TCont< T[N] > {
const T* value;
TCont( const T* const t ) : value( t ) { }
};
template<typename T> struct TCont<T*> {
const T* value;
TCont( const T* t ): value(t){}
};
// forward definition of type argument list
template< typename aT, typename aRest >
struct TArgList ;
// this structure is the starting point
// of the type safe variadic argument list
struct VoidArg {
template< typename A >
struct Append {
typedef TArgList< A, VoidArg > result;
};
template< typename A >
typename Append<A>::result append( const A& a ) const {
Append<A>::result ret( a, *this );
return ret;
}
//syntactic sugar
template< typename A > typename Append<A>::result operator=( const A& a ) const { return append(a); }
} const arglist;
// typelist containing an argument
// and the rest of the arguments (again a typelist)
//
template< typename aT, typename aRest >
struct TArgList {
typedef aT T;
typedef aRest Rest;
typedef TArgList< aT, aRest > Self;
TArgList( const TCont<T>& head, const Rest& rest ): head( head ), rest( rest ){}
TCont<T> head;
Rest rest;
template< typename A > struct Append {
typedef TArgList< T, typename Rest::Append<A>::result > result;
};
template< typename A >
typename Append< A >::result append( const A& a ) const {
Append< A >::result ret ( head.value, (rest.append( a ) ) );
return ret;
}
template< typename A > typename Append<A>::result operator,( const A& a ) const { return append(a); }
};