I have class A that needs to invoke the member functions of template class B. Searching around I found this sample code on this site:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T, typename FType>
void bar(T& d, FType f) {
(d.*f)(); // call member function
}
struct foible
{
void say()
{
std::cout << "foible::say" << std::endl;
}
};
int main(void)
{
foible f;
bar(f, &foible::say); // types will be deduced automagically...
}
That came from this answer:
C++ method name as template parameter
But it doesn't do 100% of what I need. How would the above code be re-written so that:
method bar is a public member of a class and not a stand-alone
function
arguments d and f which are getting passed to method bar are
public members of the same class to which bar is a member,
allowing bar to be of type void (void)
object type foible is a class and not a structure (optional)?
[EDIT 1] My own attempt at the rewrite which meets points 1) and 2) is the following, which is wrong:
#include <iostream>
template<class T, void (T::*FType)()>
class foo {
public:
T obj;
FType f;
void bar(void) {
(obj.*f)(); // call member function
} // end bar
}; // end class foo
struct foible
{
void say()
{
std::cout << "foible::say" << std::endl;
}
};
int main(void)
{
foible f;
foo<foible, void (foible::*)()> c;
c.T = f;
c.Ftype = &foible::say;
c.bar(); // types will be deduced automagically...
}
My goal is to have an object of class type 'A' invoke the methods of object of class type 'B', so that when these methods execute the object of type 'B' can use its 'this' pointer to reference its local data. I want to use function pointers inside class type 'A' so that these only need to be specified once, and I don't want one class to have to be derived from another.
You are making that too complicated. Forget about pointers to methods. Currently there is no reason to use them.
Just do something like this:
template<typename F>
void bar(F f) {
doSomething();
f(someArg);
doSomething();
}
int main(void)
{
foible f;
bar([&f](auto x) { f.someMagicMethod(x); } );
return 0;
}
Note this approach is more flexible and readable than playing around with method pointers.
A step by step solution:
all examples uses the following class and foo function
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
void foo(){std::cout<<"foo"<<std::endl;}
};
this sample works without template: just calling the calling A::foo with pointer to A and pointer to A::foo:
class B
{
public:
A *a;
void (A::*p)();
void bar()
{
(a->*p)(); //call A::foo
}
};
int main(void)
{
A a;
B b;
b.a = &a;
b.p = &A::foo;
b.bar();
return 0;
}
The following sample added template class T, the pointer to foo method derived from T.
template <class T>
class C
{
public:
T* t;
void (T::*p)();
C(T &o) : t(&o){}
void bar()
{
(t->*p)();
}
};
int main(void)
{
A a;
C<A> c(a);
c.p = &A::foo;
c.bar();
return 0;
}
in the following, the method pointer was templated too, but I don't see how can it be used since you should know how many argument to give it, but anyway:
template <class T, typename F>
class D
{
public:
T* t;
F p;
D(T &o, F pf) : t(&o),p(pf){}
void bar()
{
(t->*p)();
}
};
int main(void)
{
A a;
D<A, void (A::*)()> d(a, &A::foo);
d.bar();
return 0;
}
Related
I have a templated class on some object T. T defines two member functions bar and foo
template<class T>
class A {
public:
void f() {
t_.bar();
t_.foo();
}
private:
T t_;
};
Now I would like be able to tell A (ideally at compile time), to call either foo or bar, but not both. So the idea is to tell A at construction time which member function of T to call.
The solution I have currently in place is to pass a callable void callMember(const T& t) { return t.foo(); } in A's constructor to at runtime call the right member, but I'm wondering if there is a better solution?
You can add a bool template parameter to A that tells it which member function of T to call, and then use a constexpr if on that parameter in the body of f:
template<class T, bool Choice>
class A {
public:
void f() {
if constexpr(Choice) // doesn't strictly have to be constexpr
// if T defines both bar and foo
t_.bar();
else
t_.foo();
}
private:
T t_;
};
Now for some type like:
struct S {
void bar() { std::cout << "bar"; }
void foo() { std::cout << "foo"; }
};
you can do:
A<S, true> a;
a.f(); // calls S::bar
A<S, false> b;
b.f(); // calls S::foo
Here's a demo.
I assume its Ok to have instantiations of A be of different type depending on which method is called. If that is the case I suggest to choose between two types rather than two methods.
Say X is the type with the two methods, then you can do this:
struct X {
void foo() {}
void bar() {}
};
struct Xfoo {
X x;
void foobar() { x.foo(); }
};
struct Xbar {
X x;
void foobar() { x.bar(); }
};
Now the template is:
template<class T>
class A {
public:
void f() {
t_.foobar();
}
private:
T t_;
};
And you either instantiate A<Xfoo> or A<Xbar> rather than A<X>.
I suppose you have more than just one type X, then Xfoo and Xbar can be parametrized on the type to be wrapped.
Is it possible to have callback to member of template class, as depicted above? I mean, I have some template class, there is defined object of another (non-template) class. That object has another member function. I would like to invoke from that member function the member function of template class. Is it feasible?
This is how I understand the problem. A class called 'some_class' (MyAlgorithm) supposed to have a reference to template (AlgorithmConsumer). Since 'some_class' requires only one method, the easiest way is to pass a reference to the function, something like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
class MyAlgorithm
{
std::function<void()> prepare;
public:
explicit MyAlgorithm(std::function<void()> prepare)
: prepare{prepare}
{}
void do_something()
{
if (prepare)
{
prepare();
}
std::cout << "I did something\n";
}
};
template<typename T>
class AlgorithmConsumer
{
MyAlgorithm algorithm;
public:
AlgorithmConsumer()
: algorithm([this](){prepare();})
{}
void prepare()
{
std::cout << "Preparing...\n";
}
void execute()
{
algorithm.do_something();
}
};
int main()
{
AlgorithmConsumer<int> ac;
ac.execute();
return 0;
}
Hope, this solves your problem.
Here's one way to do it without using std::function
struct B{
template<class T>
void CallTemplateFun(void (T::*funPtr)(), T& instance){
(instance.*funPtr)();
}
};
template<typename T>
class A{
T t;
B b;
public:
A(T v) : t(v){}
void print(){ std::cout << t << std::endl ; }
};
int main(
{
A<int> ai(5);
B b;
b.CallTemplateFun(&A<int>::print, ai);
A<float> af(3.1428f);
b.CallTemplateFun(&A<float>::print, af);
return 0;
}
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class c1 {
public:
void f1() { std::cout << "In f1\n"; }
};
class c2 {
public:
void f2() { std::cout << "In f2\n"; }
};
template<typename T>
class C: public c1, c2 {
public:
void f() {
};
};
int main() {
C<c2> c;
c.f();
return 0;
}
is there any way based on T the function f in C can be mapped to function f1 in c1 and f2 in c2? I am not clear how function f that can be used as a wrapper around f1 and f2 when i am pointing to a specific class using T
Note: I cannot modify class c1 and c2. its out of my scope.
You can use constexpr if from C++17. e.g.
void f() {
if constexpr (std::is_same_v<T, c1>)
f1();
else
f2();
}
LIVE
Note that constexpr if is evaluated at compile-time, as #skypjack commented, for this case, it's pretty fine to be evaluated at run-time too. So the following code works fine too:
void f() {
if (std::is_same_v<T, c1>)
f1();
else
f2();
}
Yes, you can write a template like that. In several ways in fact. If you want to keep C as it is, then it's a simple matter of adding a type trait which contains a pointer to a member function
Live Example
template<typename> struct which_member;
template<> struct which_member<c1> {
static constexpr void (c1::* func)() = &c1::f1;
};
template<> struct which_member<c2> {
static constexpr void (c2::* func)() = &c2::f2;
};
void f() {
(static_cast<T*>(this)->*which_member<T>::func)();
}
The key is here (static_cast<T*>(this)->*which_member<T>::func)();. We cast this to the appropriate type pointer, then use the trait to retrieve the pointer to a member. And finally we use the access operator ->* on these two operands to obtain a callable expression. Which we then call (the outer ()).
The cast isn't strictly needed, but I think the error message is more descriptive of the problem if you pass something that isn't a base class of C as the type parameter.
You can specialise template:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class c1{
public:
void f1(){std::cout<<"In f1\n";}
};
class c2{
public:
void f2(){std::cout<<"In f2\n";}
};
template <typename T>
class C:public c1, c2 {
public:
void f()
{
};
};
template<> class C<c1>:public c1, c2 {
public:
void f()
{
c1::f1();
};
};
template<> class C<c2>:public c1, c2 {
public:
void f()
{
c2::f2();
};
};
int main()
{
C<c2> c;
c.f();
return 0;
}
Is it possible to use SFINAE and std::enable_if to disable a single member function of a template class?
I currently have a code similar to this:
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
#include <string>
class Base {
public:
virtual int f() { return 0; }
};
template<typename T>
class Derived : public Base {
private:
T getValue_() { return T(); }
public:
int f() override {
assert((std::is_same<T, int>::value));
T val = getValue_();
//return val; --> not possible if T not convertible to int
return *reinterpret_cast<int*>(&val);
}
};
template<typename T>
class MoreDerived : public Derived<T> {
public:
int f() override { return 2; }
};
int main() {
Derived<int> i;
MoreDerived<std::string> f;
std::cout << f.f() << " " << i.f() << std::endl;
}
Ideally, Derived<T>::f() should be disabled if T != int. Because f is virtual, Derived<T>::f() gets generated for any instantiation of Derived, even if it is never called.
But the code is used such that Derived<T> (with T != int) never gets created only as a base class of MoreDerived<T>.
So the hack in Derived<T>::f() is necessary to make the program compile; the reinterpret_cast line never gets executed.
You could simply specialize f for int:
template<typename T>
class Derived : public Base {
private:
T getValue_() { return T(); }
public:
int f() override {
return Base::f();
}
};
template <>
int Derived<int>::f () {
return getValue_();
}
No you can't rule out a member function with SFINAE. You could do it with specialisation of your Derived class f member function for convertible Ts to int but that would lead to unnecessary duplication of code. In C++17 however you could solve this with use of if constexpr:
template<typename T> class Derived : public Base {
T getValue_() { return T(); }
public:
int f() override {
if constexpr(std::is_convertible<T, int>::value) return getValue_();
return Base::f();
}
};
Live Demo
I would like to do something like:
class A {
public:
void f();
private:
void g() { };
};
class B {
public:
void f();
private:
void g() { };
};
template<typename T>
void T::f() {
g();
}
int main() {
A a;
B b;
a.f();
b.f();
}
however T::f() does not compile.
Possible workarounds could be making f() non-member:
template<typename T>
void f(T* t);
Or using CRTP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_pattern
But is there no C++ syntax to do as above?
EDIT: I have a big function f() whose code is shared by the 2 classes A and B. A and B have the same interface, which f() uses. However, because we are not using runtime polimorphism (i.e, virtual functions), the corpus of f() needs to be instantiated twice at compile time, once for A and once for B. Templates are made exactly for this purpose. The function f(), in my case, should be template function whose template type is the type of *this.
Free function is the correct answer. You should prefer free functions over member functions anyway, for this exact reason: you extend the interface without intruding on the class.
In this case, a free function with an unconstrained template is a bit ugly, because you only need it to work for two cases, not all cases. You should do something like this:
namespace detail
{
template <typename T>
void f(T* t)
{
// implement stuff
}
}
void f(A* x)
{
detail::f(x);
}
void f(B* x)
{
detail::f(x);
}
Now you can restrict access to that function via overloading.
Here is an example using a free function and retaining the instance.f() syntax. The function needs to be marked as a friend in order to access the private methods:
#include <iostream>
namespace details
{
template<class T>
static void f_impl(T* _this)
{
_this->g();
}
}
class A {
public:
template<class T> friend void details::f_impl(T*);
void f()
{
details::f_impl(this);
}
private:
void g()
{
std::cout << "A" << std::endl;
}
};
class B {
public:
template<class T> friend void details::f_impl(T*);
void f()
{
details::f_impl(this);
}
private:
void g()
{
std::cout << "B" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
A a;
B b;
a.f();
b.f();
}