Variadic argument subset - c++

I am trying to obtain a subset of the variadic arguments of current class wrapper to instantiate a new one
Currently I have this:
// Reference: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27941661/generating-one-class-member-per-variadic-template-argument
// Template specialization
template<typename T, typename... Next> class VariadicClass;
// Base case extension
template <typename T>
class VariadicClass<T> {
private:
T value_;
protected:
void SetField(T & value) {
value_ = value;
}
T & GetField() {
return value_;
}
};
// Inductive case
template <typename T, typename ... Next>
class VariadicClass : public VariadicClass<T>, public VariadicClass<Next...> {
public:
// Copy the values into the variadic class
template <typename F>
void Set(F f) {
this->VariadicClass<F>::SetField(f);
}
// Retrieve by reference
template <typename F>
F & Get() {
return this->VariadicClass<F>::GetField();
}
};
And what I want to achieve is something along the following:
[C]: A subset of Args...
VariadicClass<[C]> * Filter(VariadicClass<Args...> input) {
return new VariadicClass<[C]>(GetSubsetFrom(input, [C]));
}
VariadicClass<int, bool, char> class1;
VariadicClass<int, bool> * variadic = Filter(class1);
You can assume that each type is only once in the variadic class and that I will always ask for a subset of the current variadic types. I don't know if this is currently possible in C++ 11?
Thank you for your help.

It seems to me that you're trying to reinvent the wheel (where "wheel", in this case, is std::tuple).
Anyway, what you ask seems simple to me
template <typename ... As1, typename ... As2>
VariadicClass<As1...> * Filter(VariadicClass<As2...> in)
{
using unused = int[];
auto ret = new VariadicClass<As1...>();
(void)unused { 0, (ret->template Set<As1>(in.template Get<As1>()), 0)... };
return ret;
}
The problem I see is that the As1... types (the types of the returned VariadicClass) aren't deducible by the returned value, so you can't write
VariadicClass<int, bool> * variadic = Filter(class1);
You have to explicit the As1... types calling Filter(), so
VariadicClass<int, bool> * variadic = Filter<int, bool>(class1);
or, maybe better,
auto variadic = Filter<int, bool>(class1);
The following is a full compiling example
#include <iostream>
template <typename, typename...>
class VariadicClass;
template <typename T>
class VariadicClass<T>
{
private:
T value_;
protected:
void SetField (T & value)
{ value_ = value; }
T & GetField ()
{ return value_; }
};
template <typename T, typename ... Next>
class VariadicClass : public VariadicClass<T>, public VariadicClass<Next...>
{
public:
template <typename F>
void Set (F f)
{ this->VariadicClass<F>::SetField(f); }
template <typename F>
F & Get()
{ return this->VariadicClass<F>::GetField(); }
};
template <typename ... As1, typename ... As2>
VariadicClass<As1...> * Filter(VariadicClass<As2...> in)
{
using unused = int[];
auto ret = new VariadicClass<As1...>();
(void)unused { 0, (ret->template Set<As1>(in.template Get<As1>()), 0)... };
return ret;
}
int main()
{
VariadicClass<int, bool, char> c1;
c1.Set<int>(42);
c1.Set<bool>(true);
c1.Set<char>('Z');
auto pC2 = Filter<int, bool>(c1);
std::cout << pC2->Get<int>() << std::endl;
std::cout << pC2->Get<bool>() << std::endl;
delete pC2;
}
Off Topic Unrequested Suggestion: you're using C++11 so... try to avoid the direct use of pointer and try to use smart pointers (std::unique_ptr, std::shared_ptr, etc.) instead.

First of all I think you shouldn't write your own variadic class as we already have std::tuplein place.
I wonder that you sit on c++11because it is quite old. Even c++14is outdated but if you can switch, the solution is very simple:
template < typename DATA, typename FILTER, std::size_t... Is>
auto Subset_Impl( const DATA& data, FILTER& filter, std::index_sequence<Is...> )
{
filter = { std::get< typename std::remove_reference<decltype( std::get< Is >( filter ))>::type>( data )... };
}
template < typename DATA, typename FILTER, typename IDC = std::make_index_sequence<std::tuple_size<FILTER>::value >>
auto Subset( const DATA& data, FILTER& filter )
{
return Subset_Impl( data, filter, IDC{} );
}
int main()
{
std::tuple< int, float, std::string, char > data { 1, 2.2, "Hallo", 'c' };
std::tuple< float, char > filter;
Subset( data, filter );
std::cout << std::get<0>( filter ) << " " << std::get<1>( filter ) << std::endl;
}
If you really want sit on outdated standards, you can easily implement the missing parts from the standard library your self. One related question is answered here: get part of std::tuple
How the helper templates are defined can also be seen on: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/integer_sequence

Related

Passing std::vector of wrapper of std::variant into variadic class, wrapping variadic method without knowing the specifics

The goal
I try to create a set of classes that removes boilerplate code for implementing extensions to a game in C++.
For that, I have a designated value class, that can hold one of the following types:
float, std::string, bool, std::vector<value>, void
For that, I would like to have a host class to which I can add one or more method instances like follows:
using namespace std::string_literals;
host h;
h.add(
method<bool, req<std::string>, req<std::string>, opt<bool>>("compare_strings"s,
[](std::string s_orig, std::string s_comp, std::optional<bool> ingore_case) -> bool {
if (ignore_case.has_value() && ignore_case.value()) {
// ... lowercase both
}
return s_orig.compare(s_comp) == 0;
}));
Note that req<T> should be a meta info that a given value is required, opt<T> a meta info that a given value is not required and may only be provided after all required parameters.
The host class now contains a method execute(std::string function, std::vector<value> values) with function and values originating from a method getting char* for method and ´char** argv+ int argcfor values. Theexecutemethod now is supposed to call the correctmethod` instances function
value host::execute(std::string function, std::vector<value> values) {
// get matching method group
std::vector<method> mthds = m_methods[function];
// get matching parameter list
for (method& mthd : mthds) {
if (mthd.can_call(mthds, values)) {
// call generic method
auto res = mthd.call_generic(values);
// pass result back to callee
// return [...]
}
}
// return error back to callee
// return [...]
}
which means that the actual method class now needs to mangle two methods properly can_call and call_generic.
The value class has corresponding template<typename T> bool is() and template<typename T> T get() methods.
What remains
I did have other attempts at this, but as those failed, I deleted them (not very smart in hindside, but needed to get the whole thing out as another person relied on the results working) and now cannot figure out another attempt then prior ... so this is what I am left with as of now:
class method_base
{
public:
template<typename T> struct in { using type = T; };
template<typename T> struct opt { using type = T; };
public:
virtual bool can_call(std::vector<sqf::value> values) = 0;
virtual sqf::value call_generic(std::vector<sqf::value> values) = 0;
};
template<typename T, typename ... TArgs>
class method : public method_base
{
func m_func;
sqf::value val
public:
using func = T(*)(TArgs...);
method(func f) : m_func(f) {}
virtual retval can_call(std::vector<sqf::value> values) override
{
}
};
Appendix
If something is unclear, confusing or you just have further questions, please do ask them. I will try my best to rephrase whatever is unclear as this will help greatly with developing further extensions in the future, possibly defining a "go to" way for how to create extensions in the community for the game in question (Arma 3 just in case somebody wondered)
I may note that this is pretty much my first deep dive into meta programming so things I present may not be possible at all. If so, I kindly would like to ask you if you may also explain why that is so and the thing I attempt is not possible.
The Solution
I do want to express my thanks to all who answered this question again. I ended up combining pretty much parts of all solutions here and pretty much learned a lot on the way. The final implementation I ended up with looks like the following:
namespace meta
{
template <typename ArgType>
struct is_optional : std::false_type {};
template <typename T>
struct is_optional<std::optional<T>> : std::true_type {};
template <typename ArgType>
inline constexpr bool is_optional_v = is_optional<ArgType>::value;
template <typename ArgType>
struct def_value { static ArgType value() { return {}; } };
template <typename ArgType>
struct get_type { using type = ArgType; };
template <typename ArgType>
struct get_type<std::optional<ArgType>> { using type = ArgType; };
}
struct method {
std::function<bool(const std::vector<value>&)> m_can_call;
std::function<value(const std::vector<value>&)> m_call;
template <typename ... Args, std::size_t... IndexSequence>
static bool can_call_impl(const std::vector<value>& values, std::index_sequence<IndexSequence...> s) {
// values max args
return values.size() <= sizeof...(Args) &&
// for every Arg, either...
(... && (
// the value provides that argument and its the correct type, or...
(IndexSequence < values.size() && sqf::is<sqf::meta::get_type<Args>::type>(values[IndexSequence])) ||
// the value does not provide that argument and the arg is an optional
(IndexSequence >= values.size() && sqf::meta::is_optional_v<Args>)
));
}
template <typename Ret, typename ... Args, std::size_t... IndexSequence>
static value call_impl(std::function<Ret(Args...)> f, const std::vector<value>& values, std::index_sequence<IndexSequence...>) {
return {
// call the function with every type in the value set,
// padding with empty std::optionals otherwise
std::invoke(f,
(IndexSequence < values.size() ? sqf::get<sqf::meta::get_type<Args>::type>(values[IndexSequence])
: sqf::meta::def_value<Args>::value())...)
};
}
public:
template <typename Ret, typename ... Args>
method(std::function<Ret(Args...)> f) :
m_can_call([](const std::vector<value>& values) -> bool
{
return can_call_impl<Args...>(values, std::index_sequence_for<Args...>{});
}),
m_call([f](const std::vector<value>& values) -> value
{
return call_impl<Ret, Args...>(f, values, std::index_sequence_for<Args...>{});
})
{
}
bool can_call(const std::vector<value>& values) const { return m_can_call(values); }
value call_generic(const std::vector<value>& values) const { return m_call(values); }
// to handle lambda
template <typename F>
method static create(F f) { return method{ std::function{f} }; }
};
Assumming a way to check current type of value (template <typename T> bool value::isA<T>()) and a way to retrieve the value (template <typename T> /*const*/T& get(/*const*/ value&))
It seems you might do:
struct method
{
template <typename Ret, typename ... Ts>
method(std::function<Ret(Ts...)> f) : method(std::index_sequence<sizeof...(Ts)>(), f)
{}
template <typename Ret, typename ... Ts, std::size_t ... Is>
method(std::index_sequence<Is...>, std::function<Ret(Ts...)> f) :
isOk([](const std::vector<value>& values) {
return ((values.size() == sizeof...(Is)) && ... && values[Is].isA<Ts>());
}),
call([f](const std::vector<value>& values){
return f(get<Ts>(values[Is])...);
})
{}
// to handle lambda
template <typename F>
static fromCallable(F f) { return method{std::function{f}}; }
std::function<bool(const std::vector<value>&)> isOk;
std::function<value(const std::vector<value>&)> call;
};
Here's a quick example including the machinery for ret<T> and opt<T>. You haven't given any information on what value is, so I'm going to assume something like:
struct value {
// using `std::monostate` instead of `void`
std::variant<float, std::string, bool, std::vector<value>, std::monostate> data;
};
(I'm assuming c++17 for this answer.)
From there, we need our metatypes and a few traits to branch off them. I implement them using partial specialisations, but there are other ways too.
// types to determine optional vs. required
template <typename T>
struct req { using type = T; };
template <typename T>
struct opt { using type = T; };
// trait to determine if it's an optional type
template <typename ArgType>
struct is_optional : std::false_type {};
template <typename T>
struct is_optional<opt<T>> : std::true_type {};
template <typename ArgType>
inline constexpr bool is_optional_v = is_optional<ArgType>::value;
// get the "real" function parameter type
template <typename ArgType>
struct real_type;
template <typename ArgType>
using real_type_t = typename real_type<ArgType>::type;
template <typename T>
struct real_type<req<T>> { using type = T; };
template <typename T>
struct real_type<opt<T>> { using type = std::optional<T>; };
Now we implement method. I'll use a similar polymorphic relationship with method_base as you do in your partial demo; I also template on the function type passed in, to allow e.g. the functions to use const references to the type instead of the type itself.
The implementation itself uses the common trick of delegating to helper functions with std::index_sequence and fold expressions to "iterate" through the variadic template args.
// base class for polymorphism
struct method_base {
virtual ~method_base() = default;
virtual bool can_call(const std::vector<value>& values) const = 0;
virtual value call_generic(const std::vector<value>& values) const = 0;
};
// provide a different method implementation for each set of args
// I also overload on
template<typename RetType, typename Fn, typename... Args>
struct method : method_base {
private:
Fn func;
static_assert(std::is_invocable_r_v<RetType, Fn, real_type_t<Args>...>,
"function must be callable with given args");
public:
// accept any function that looks sort of like what we expect;
// static assert above makes sure it's sensible
template <typename G>
method(G&& func) : func(std::forward<G>(func)) {}
template <std::size_t... Is>
bool can_call_impl(const std::vector<value>& values, std::index_sequence<Is...>) const {
// for every Arg, either...
return (... and (
// the value provides that argument and its the correct type, or...
(Is < values.size() and std::holds_alternative<typename Args::type>(values[Is].data))
// the value does not provide that argument and the arg is an optional
or (Is >= values.size() and is_optional_v<Args>)
));
}
bool can_call(const std::vector<value>& values) const override {
return can_call_impl(values, std::index_sequence_for<Args...>{});
}
template <std::size_t... Is>
value call_generic_impl(const std::vector<value>& values, std::index_sequence<Is...>) const {
return {
// call the function with every type in the value set,
// padding with empty std::optionals otherwise
std::invoke(func,
(Is < values.size() ? std::get<typename Args::type>(values[Is].data)
: real_type_t<Args>{})...)
};
}
value call_generic(const std::vector<value>& values) const override {
return call_generic_impl(values, std::index_sequence_for<Args...>{});
}
};
I'll also create a helper function to make methods:
template <typename RetType, typename... Args, typename Fn>
std::unique_ptr<method_base> make_method(Fn&& func) {
return std::make_unique<method<RetType, std::decay_t<Fn>, Args...>>(std::forward<Fn>(func));
}
Live example.
It's not perfect, but this should give you a general idea of how to do it.
Change your method to:
method< R(Args...) >
your tags seem useless. Detect optional with ... std::optional.
For storage, use std variant. Use some non-void type for void (I don't care what).
As a first pass we aim for perfect compatibility.
template<class...Args>
struct check_signature {
bool operator()( std::span<value const> values ) const {
if (sizeof...(Args) != values.size()) return false;
std::size_t i=0;
return (std::holds_alternative<Args>(values[i++])&&...);
}
};
this can be stored in a std::function<bool(std::span<value const>)> or just called in your class impementation.
Similar code can store the callable.
template<class F, class R, class...Args>
struct execute {
F f;
template<std::size_t...Is>
R operator()( std::index_sequence<Is...>, std::span<value const> values ) const {
if (sizeof...(Args) != values.size()) return false;
return f( std::get<Args>(values[Is])... );
}
R operator()( std::span<value const> values ) const {
return (*this)( std::make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Args)>{}, values );
}
};
some work may have to be done for the fake void.
Your method is now a aggregate.
struct method {
std::function<bool(std::span<value const>)> can_call;
std::function<value(std::span<value const>)> execute;
};
if you want it to be. The two template objects above can be stored in these two std functions.
There are probably tpyos, I just wrote this on my phone and have not tested it.
Extending this to cover optional args is a little bit of work. But nothing hard.
In both cases, you'll write a helper function that says if the argument is compatible or generates the value based on if you are past the end of the incoming vector.
Ie, std::get<Args>(values[Is])... becomes getArgFrom<Is, Args>{}(values)..., and we specialize for std optional producing nullopt if Is>values.size().

How to create a tuple of vectors of type deduced from a variadic template in C++17?

I have implemented a collection class that converts a vector of tuples to a tuple of vectors (it is essentially an AOS to SOA conversion). This code works for this example of two template classes. I was trying to make it more generic by using variadic templates. In order to do that I need to create the type for the member variable m_col. In C++17, is it possible to convert a tuple to a tuple of vectors? So the type of the member variance m_col in this example will be generated automatically from template types.
template<class T1, class T2>
class Collection
{
std::tuple<std::vector<T1>, std::vector<T2>> m_col;
public:
void addRow(const std::tuple<T1, T2>& data)
{
std::get<0>(m_col).push_back(std::get<0>(data));
std::get<1>(m_col).push_back(std::get<1>(data));
}
void show()
{
std::cout << std::get<0>(m_col1).size() <<std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
using data_t = std::tuple<int, double>;
data_t data{1,1.0};
using col_t = Collection<int, double>;
col_t col;
col.addRow(data);
col.show();
}
You're using C++17 so... what about using template folding and some std::apply()?
I mean
template <typename ... Ts>
class Collection
{
private:
std::tuple<std::vector<Ts>...> m_col;
public:
void addRow (std::tuple<Ts...> const & data)
{
std::apply([&](auto & ... vectors){
std::apply([&](auto & ... values){
(vectors.push_back(values), ...);},
data); },
m_col);
}
void show () const
{
std::apply([](auto & ... vectors){
((std::cout << vectors.size() << '\n'), ...);}, m_col);
}
};
You might do with std::index_sequence:
template<class ... Ts>
class Collection
{
std::tuple<std::vector<Ts>...> m_col;
private:
template <std::size_t ... Is>
void addRow(std::index_sequence<Is...>, const std::tuple<Ts...>& data)
{
(std::get<Is>(m_col).push_back(std::get<Is>(data)), ...);
}
public:
void addRow(const std::tuple<Ts...>& data)
{
addRow(std::index_sequence_for<Ts...>(), data);
}
};
Demo

In C++, how to return different generic types depending on argument in a class?

I have this code:
template<class T1, class T2>
class Pair
{
private:
T1 first;
T2 second;
public:
void SetFirst(T1 first)
{
this.first = first;
}
void SetSecond(T2 second)
{
this.second = second;
}
T1 GetFirst()
{
return first;
}
T2 GetSecond()
{
return second;
}
};
How could I implement two single methods SetValue() and GetValue(), instead of the four I have, that decides depending on parameters which generic type that should be used? For instance I'm thinking the GetValue() method could take an int parameter of either 1 or 2 and depending on the number, return either a variable of type T1 or T2. But I don't know the return type beforehand so is there anyway to solve this?
Not sure to understand what do you want and not exactly what you asked but...
I propose the use of a wrapper base class defined as follows
template <typename T>
class wrap
{
private:
T elem;
public:
void set (T const & t)
{ elem = t; }
T get () const
{ return elem; }
};
Now your class can be defined as
template <typename T1, typename T2>
struct Pair : wrap<T1>, wrap<T2>
{
template <typename T>
void set (T const & t)
{ wrap<T>::set(t); }
template <typename T>
T get () const
{ return wrap<T>::get(); }
};
or, if you can use C++11 and variadic templates and if you define a type traits getType to get the Nth type of a list,
template <std::size_t I, typename, typename ... Ts>
struct getType
{ using type = typename getType<I-1U, Ts...>::type; };
template <typename T, typename ... Ts>
struct getType<0U, T, Ts...>
{ using type = T; };
you can define Pair in a more flexible way as follows
template <typename ... Ts>
struct Pair : wrap<Ts>...
{
template <typename T>
void set (T const & t)
{ wrap<T>::set(t); }
template <std::size_t N, typename T>
void set (T const & t)
{ wrap<typename getType<N, Ts...>::type>::set(t); }
template <typename T>
T get () const
{ return wrap<T>::get(); }
template <std::size_t N>
typename getType<N, Ts...>::type get ()
{ return wrap<typename getType<N, Ts...>::type>::get(); }
};
Now the argument of set() can select the correct base class and the correct base element
Pair<int, long> p;
p.set(0); // set the int elem
p.set(1L); // set the long elem
otherwise, via index, you can write
p.set<0U>(3); // set the 1st (int) elem
p.set<1U>(4); // set the 2nd (long) elem
Unfortunately, the get() doesn't receive an argument, so the type have to be explicited (via type or via index)
p.get<int>(); // get the int elem value
p.get<long>(); // get the long elem value
p.get<0U>(); // get the 1st (int) elem value
p.get<1U>(); // get the 2nd (long) elem value
Obviously, this didn't work when T1 is equal to T2
The following is a (C++11) full working example
#include <iostream>
template <std::size_t I, typename, typename ... Ts>
struct getType
{ using type = typename getType<I-1U, Ts...>::type; };
template <typename T, typename ... Ts>
struct getType<0U, T, Ts...>
{ using type = T; };
template <typename T>
class wrap
{
private:
T elem;
public:
void set (T const & t)
{ elem = t; }
T get () const
{ return elem; }
};
template <typename ... Ts>
struct Pair : wrap<Ts>...
{
template <typename T>
void set (T const & t)
{ wrap<T>::set(t); }
template <std::size_t N, typename T>
void set (T const & t)
{ wrap<typename getType<N, Ts...>::type>::set(t); }
template <typename T>
T get () const
{ return wrap<T>::get(); }
template <std::size_t N>
typename getType<N, Ts...>::type get ()
{ return wrap<typename getType<N, Ts...>::type>::get(); }
};
int main()
{
//Pair<int, int> p; compilation error
Pair<int, long, long long> p;
p.set(0);
p.set(1L);
p.set(2LL);
std::cout << p.get<int>() << std::endl; // print 0
std::cout << p.get<long>() << std::endl; // print 1
std::cout << p.get<long long>() << std::endl; // print 2
p.set<0U>(3);
p.set<1U>(4);
p.set<2U>(5);
std::cout << p.get<0U>() << std::endl; // print 3
std::cout << p.get<1U>() << std::endl; // print 4
std::cout << p.get<2U>() << std::endl; // print 5
}
C++ is statically typed, so the argument given must be a template-argument instead a function-argument.
And while it will look like just one function each to the user, it's really two.
template <int i = 1> auto GetValue() -> std::enable_if_t<i == 1, T1> { return first; }
template <int i = 2> auto GetValue() -> std::enable_if_t<i == 2, T2> { return second; }
template <int i = 1> auto SetValue(T1 x) -> std::enable_if_t<i == 1> { first = x; }
template <int i = 2> auto SetValue(T2 x) -> std::enable_if_t<i == 2> { second = x; }
I use SFINAE on the return-type to remove the function from consideration unless the template-argument is right.
For this particular situation, you should definitely prefer std::pair or std::tuple.
You can simply overload SetValue() (provided T1 and T2 can be distinguished, if not you have a compile error):
void SetValue(T1 x)
{ first=x; }
void SetValue(T2 x)
{ second=x; }
Then, the compiler with find the best match for any call, i.e.
Pair<int,double> p;
p.SetValue(0); // sets p.first
p.SetValue(0.0); // sets p.second
With GetValue(), the information of which element you want to retrieve cannot be inferred from something like p.GetValue(), so you must provide it somehow. There are several options, such as
template<typename T>
std::enable_if_t<std::is_same<T,T1>,T>
GetValue() const
{ return first; }
template<typename T>
std::enable_if_t<std::is_same<T,T2>,T>
GetValue() const
{ return second; }
to be used like
auto a = p.GetValue<int>();
auto b = p.GetValue<double>();
but your initial version is good enough.

Get function with generic return type

I try to implement a data structure that comprises multiple name-value pairs where values may differ in their type:
template< typename T >
struct name_value_pair
{
std::string name;
T value;
};
template< typename... Ts >
class tuple_of_name_value_pairs
{
public:
/* type of value */ get_value( std::string n )
{
// return the value that the element in
// _name_value_pairs with name "n" comprises
}
private:
std::tuple<Ts...> _name_value_pairs:
};
Unfortunately, I have no idea how to implement the get function.
A workaround would be to state names as integers instead of strings and use an implementation according to std::get but this no option here: the input type of get has to be a string.
Has anyone an idea?
Firstly have in mind you cannot do what you want directly. C++ is a strongly typed language so type of function result must be known at compile time. So of course if the string you pass to the getter is known at runtime you're not able to dispatch function at compile time to let compiler deduce appropriate result type. But when you accept that you need type-erasure to erase the getter result type you could make use of e.g. boost::variant to deal with your problem. C++14 example (using boost, since c++17 variant should be available in std):
#include <boost/variant.hpp>
#include <utility>
#include <iostream>
#include <tuple>
template< typename T >
struct name_value_pair
{
using type = T;
std::string name;
T value;
};
template <std::size_t N, class = std::make_index_sequence<N>>
struct getter;
template <std::size_t N, std::size_t... Is>
struct getter<N, std::index_sequence<Is...>> {
template <class Val, class Res>
void setRes(Val &val, Res &res, std::string &s) {
if (val.name == s)
res = val.value;
}
template <class Tup>
auto operator()(Tup &tuple_vals, std::string &s) {
boost::variant<typename std::tuple_element<Is, Tup>::type::type...> result;
int helper[] = { (setRes(std::get<Is>(tuple_vals), result, s), 1)... };
(void)helper;
return result;
}
};
template <std::size_t N, class = std::make_index_sequence<N>>
struct setter;
template <std::size_t N, std::size_t... Is>
struct setter<N, std::index_sequence<Is...>> {
template <class Val, class SVal>
std::enable_if_t<!std::is_same<SVal, typename Val::type>::value> setVal(Val &, std::string &, const SVal &) { }
template <class Val>
void setVal(Val &val, std::string &s, const typename Val::type &sval) {
if (val.name == s)
val.value = sval;
}
template <class Tup, class Val>
auto operator()(Tup &tuple_vals, std::string &s, const Val &val) {
int helper[] = { (setVal(std::get<Is>(tuple_vals), s, val), 1)... };
(void)helper;
}
};
template <class T, class Res>
using typer = Res;
template< typename... Ts >
class tuple_of_name_value_pairs
{
public:
auto get_value( std::string n )
{
return getter<sizeof...(Ts)>{}(_name_value_pairs, n);
}
template <class T>
void set_value( std::string n, const T& value) {
setter<sizeof...(Ts)>{}(_name_value_pairs, n , value);
}
void set_names(typer<Ts, std::string>... names) {
_name_value_pairs = std::make_tuple(name_value_pair<Ts>{names, Ts{}}...);
}
private:
std::tuple<name_value_pair<Ts>...> _name_value_pairs;
};
int main() {
tuple_of_name_value_pairs<int, float, double> t;
t.set_names("abc", "def", "ghi");
t.set_value("abc", 1);
t.set_value("def", 4.5f);
t.set_value("ghi", 5.0);
std::cout << t.get_value("def") << std::endl;
}
[live demo]
I'm sure you'll be able to optimise the code (e.g. make use of move semantics/perfect forwarding, etc.). This is only to present you how to get your implementation started.

Generating one class member per variadic template argument

I have a template class where each template argument stands for one type of value the internal computation can handle. Templates (instead of function overloading) are needed because the values are passed as boost::any and their types are not clear before runtime.
To properly cast to the correct types, I would like to have a member list for each variadic argument type, something like this:
template<typename ...AcceptedTypes> // e.g. MyClass<T1, T2>
class MyClass {
std::vector<T1> m_argumentsOfType1;
std::vector<T2> m_argumentsOfType2; // ...
};
Or alternatively, I'd like to store the template argument types in a list, as to do some RTTI magic with it (?). But how to save them in a std::initializer_list member is also unclear to me.
Thanks for any help!
As you have already been hinted, the best way is to use a tuple:
template<typename ...AcceptedTypes> // e.g. MyClass<T1, T2>
class MyClass {
std::tuple<std::vector<AcceptedTypes>...> vectors;
};
This is the only way to multiply the "fields" because you cannot magically make it spell up the field names. Another important thing may be to get some named access to them. I guess that what you're trying to achieve is to have multiple vectors with unique types, so you can have the following facility to "search" for the correct vector by its value type:
template <class T1, class T2>
struct SameType
{
static const bool value = false;
};
template<class T>
struct SameType<T, T>
{
static const bool value = true;
};
template <typename... Types>
class MyClass
{
public:
typedef std::tuple<vector<Types>...> vtype;
vtype vectors;
template<int N, typename T>
struct VectorOfType: SameType<T,
typename std::tuple_element<N, vtype>::type::value_type>
{ };
template <int N, class T, class Tuple,
bool Match = false> // this =false is only for clarity
struct MatchingField
{
static vector<T>& get(Tuple& tp)
{
// The "non-matching" version
return MatchingField<N+1, T, Tuple,
VectorOfType<N+1, T>::value>::get(tp);
}
};
template <int N, class T, class Tuple>
struct MatchingField<N, T, Tuple, true>
{
static vector<T>& get(Tuple& tp)
{
return std::get<N>(tp);
}
};
template <typename T>
vector<T>& access()
{
return MatchingField<0, T, vtype,
VectorOfType<0, T>::value>::get(vectors);
}
};
Here is the testcase so you can try it out:
int main( int argc, char** argv )
{
int twelf = 12.5;
typedef reference_wrapper<int> rint;
MyClass<float, rint> mc;
vector<rint>& i = mc.access<rint>();
i.push_back(twelf);
mc.access<float>().push_back(10.5);
cout << "Test:\n";
cout << "floats: " << mc.access<float>()[0] << endl;
cout << "ints: " << mc.access<rint>()[0] << endl;
//mc.access<double>();
return 0;
}
If you use any type that is not in the list of types you passed to specialize MyClass (see this commented-out access for double), you'll get a compile error, not too readable, but gcc at least points the correct place that has caused the problem and at least such an error message suggests the correct cause of the problem - here, for example, if you tried to do mc.access<double>():
error: ‘value’ is not a member of ‘MyClass<float, int>::VectorOfType<2, double>’
An alternate solution that doesn't use tuples is to use CRTP to create a class hierarchy where each base class is a specialization for one of the types:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
template<class L, class... R> class My_class;
template<class L>
class My_class<L>
{
public:
protected:
L get()
{
return val;
}
void set(const L new_val)
{
val = new_val;
}
private:
L val;
};
template<class L, class... R>
class My_class : public My_class<L>, public My_class<R...>
{
public:
template<class T>
T Get()
{
return this->My_class<T>::get();
}
template<class T>
void Set(const T new_val)
{
this->My_class<T>::set(new_val);
}
};
int main(int, char**)
{
My_class<int, double, std::string> c;
c.Set<int>(4);
c.Set<double>(12.5);
c.Set<std::string>("Hello World");
std::cout << "int: " << c.Get<int>() << "\n";
std::cout << "double: " << c.Get<double>() << "\n";
std::cout << "string: " << c.Get<std::string>() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
One way to do such a thing, as mentioned in πάντα-ῥεῖ's comment is to use a tuple. What he didn't explain (probably to save you from yourself) is how that might look.
Here is an example:
using namespace std;
// define the abomination
template<typename...Types>
struct thing
{
thing(std::vector<Types>... args)
: _x { std::move(args)... }
{}
void print()
{
do_print_vectors(std::index_sequence_for<Types...>());
}
private:
template<std::size_t... Is>
void do_print_vectors(std::index_sequence<Is...>)
{
using swallow = int[];
(void)swallow{0, (print_one(std::get<Is>(_x)), 0)...};
}
template<class Vector>
void print_one(const Vector& v)
{
copy(begin(v), end(v), ostream_iterator<typename Vector::value_type>(cout, ","));
cout << endl;
}
private:
tuple<std::vector<Types>...> _x;
};
// test it
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(play_tuples)
{
thing<int, double, string> t {
{ 1, 2, 3, },
{ 1.1, 2.2, 3.3 },
{ "one"s, "two"s, "three"s }
};
t.print();
}
expected output:
1,2,3,
1.1,2.2,3.3,
one,two,three,
There is a proposal to allow this kind of expansion, with the intuitive syntax: P1858R1 Generalized pack declaration and usage. You can also initialize the members and access them by index. You can even support structured bindings by writing using... tuple_element = /*...*/:
template <typename... Ts>
class MyClass {
std::vector<Ts>... elems;
public:
using... tuple_element = std::vector<Ts>;
MyClass() = default;
explicit MyClass(std::vector<Ts>... args) noexcept
: elems(std::move(args))...
{
}
template <std::size_t I>
requires I < sizeof...(Ts)
auto& get() noexcept
{
return elems...[I];
}
template <std::size_t I>
requires I < sizeof...(Ts)
const auto& get() const
{
return elems...[I];
}
// ...
};
Then the class can be used like this:
using Vecs = MyClass<int, double>;
Vecs vecs{};
vecs.[0].resize(3, 42);
std::array<double, 4> arr{1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0};
vecs.[1] = {arr.[:]};
// print the elements
// note the use of vecs.[:] and Vecs::[:]
(std::copy(vecs.[:].begin(), vecs.[:].end(),
std::ostream_iterator<Vecs::[:]>{std::cout, ' '},
std::cout << '\n'), ...);
Here is a less than perfectly efficient implementation using boost::variant:
template<typename ... Ts>
using variant_vector = boost::variant< std::vector<Ts>... >;
template<typename ...Ts>
struct MyClass {
using var_vec = variant_vector<Ts...>;
std::array<var_vec, sizeof...(Ts)> vecs;
};
we create a variant-vector that can hold one of a list of types in it. You have to use boost::variant to get at the contents (which means knowing the type of the contents, or writing a visitor).
We then store an array of these variant vectors, one per type.
Now, if your class only ever holds one type of data, you can do away with the array, and just have one member of type var_vec.
I cannot see why you'd want one vector of each type. I could see wanting a vector where each element is one of any type. That would be a vector<variant<Ts...>>, as opposed to the above variant<vector<Ts>...>.
variant<Ts...> is the boost union-with-type. any is the boost smart-void*. optional is the boost there-or-not.
template<class...Ts>
boost::optional<boost::variant<Ts...>> to_variant( boost::any );
may be a useful function, that takes an any and tries to convert it to any of the Ts... types in the variant, and returns it if it succeeds (and returns an empty optional if not).