The C++ standard defines function objects as:
A function object type is an object type that can be the type of the
postfix-expression in a function call. (link)
First I was thinking that function objects were functors, but then I realized that for a function pointer ptr of type P (not a function, but a function pointer), std::is_object_v<P> is true and can be called with the ptr(Args...) syntax.
I am right that function pointers are considered as function objects by the standard? And if they are not what part of the definition is not satisfied by function pointers?
Yes, they are. The term "object" in C++ standard does not mean "object" in the OOP sense. An int is an object.
Function pointer is what it sounds like: a pointer to function. As itself it's a storage containing a pointer object, which returns a callable of function type.
If you take time and read first chapters of standard, you 'll understand that any variable declaration declares some type of storage that contains objects. Those can be objects of primitive types or classes. Essentially in C++ anything that can be stored is object.
By declaring function pointer you create storage that can store address of that function and operator() can be used
Anther type of callable closure can be created by lambda expression. They are not function objects, each expression creates a unique callable object, but captureless lambdas can be used as one, e.g. to assign it to a function pointer, e.g.
double (*square)(double) = [](double a)->double { return a*a; };
after this you can call it using expression like square(3.6);
For functions and lambda call operator operator() is supplied by language, by defining operator() for a class you create what people often call "functor", which is misnomer because actual functors in mathematics or such languages like Haskell do not store state. Result of lambda expression is a "functor" created by compiler, which stores states of captured objects.
Naming those objects callable might be a little misleading too, because as a concept in C++, a callable object is any object that can be used with INVOKE operation, which include pointers to data members even while no function calls happen.
it leaves only one option, if we can use function call with said object, it's a function object. It can be function, lambda expression, function object, function pointer, member function pointer with specified class instance ( obj.*memberptr or objptr->*memberptr - call of member function is very special) - they are function objects.
The function pointer are function object, but they also have a funny quirk coming from C era:
#include <iostream>
int foo(int a)
{
std::cout << "Hello, " << a << " stars\n";
return a;
}
int (*pr) (int) = foo;
int main()
{
pr(0);
(*pr)(1);
(**pr)(2);
(***pr)(3);
return 0;
}
The postfix expression shall have function type or pointer to function type and function is contextually convertible to a function pointer whenever such conversion is required, so repeating dereference operators bounce type "to and fro", leaving it be a function pointer. Captureless lambda would do too:
// also can write `auto pr2 = ...`
int (*pr2) (int) = [](int a)->int {
std::cout << "Hello, lambda " << a << " stars\n"; return a;
};
// in main()
(**pr2)(2);
Naturally, that code is ill-formed if pr is a generalized "functor"
int b = 2;
auto pr3 = [=]()->int {
std::cout << "Hello, general lambda " << b << std::endl;
return b;
};
pr3();
//(*pr3)(); Ill-formed: not a pointer!
Related
It is necessary for me to use std::function but I don't know what the following syntax means.
std::function<void()> f_name = []() { FNAME(); };
What is the goal of using std::function? Is it to make a pointer to a function?
std::function is a type erasure object. That means it erases the details of how some operations happen, and provides a uniform run time interface to them. For std::function, the primary1 operations are copy/move, destruction, and 'invocation' with operator() -- the 'function like call operator'.
In less abstruse English, it means that std::function can contain almost any object that acts like a function pointer in how you call it.
The signature it supports goes inside the angle brackets: std::function<void()> takes zero arguments and returns nothing. std::function< double( int, int ) > takes two int arguments and returns double. In general, std::function supports storing any function-like object whose arguments can be converted-from its argument list, and whose return value can be converted-to its return value.
It is important to know that std::function and lambdas are different, if compatible, beasts.
The next part of the line is a lambda. This is new syntax in C++11 to add the ability to write simple function-like objects -- objects that can be invoked with (). Such objects can be type erased and stored in a std::function at the cost of some run time overhead.
[](){ code } in particular is a really simple lambda. It corresponds to this:
struct some_anonymous_type {
some_anonymous_type() {}
void operator()const{
code
}
};
an instance of the above simple pseudo-function type. An actual class like the above is "invented" by the compiler, with an implementation defined unique name (often including symbols that no user-defined type can contain) (I do not know if it is possible that you can follow the standard without inventing such a class, but every compiler I know of actually creates the class).
The full lambda syntax looks like:
[ capture_list ]( argument_list )
-> return_type optional_mutable
{
code
}
But many parts can be omitted or left empty. The capture_list corresponds to both the constructor of the resulting anonymous type and its member variables, the argument_list the arguments of the operator(), and the return type the return type. The constructor of the lambda instance is also magically called when the instance is created with the capture_list.
[ capture_list ]( argument_list ) -> return_type { code }
basically becomes
struct some_anonymous_type {
// capture_list turned into member variables
some_anonymous_type( /* capture_list turned into arguments */ ):
/* member variables initialized */
{}
return_type operator()( argument_list ) const {
code
}
};
Note that in c++20 template arguments were added to lambdas, and that isn't covered above.
[]<typename T>( std::vector<T> const& v ) { return v.size(); }
1 In addition, RTTI is stored (typeid), and the cast-back-to-original-type operation is included.
Let's break the line apart:
std::function
This is a declaration for a function taking no parameters, and returning no value. If the function returned an int, it would look like this:
std::function<int()>
Likewise, if it took an int parameter as well:
std::function<int(int)>
I suspect your main confusion is the next part.
[]() { FNAME(); };
The [] part is called a capture clause. Here you put variables that are local to the declaration of your lambda, and that you want to be available within the lambda function itself. This is saying "I don't want anything to be captured". If this was within a class definition and you wanted the class to be available to the lambda, you might do:
[this]() { FNAME(); };
The next part, is the parameters being passed to the lambda, exactly the same as if it was a regular function. As mentioned earlier, std::function<void()> is a signature pointing to a method that takes no parameters, so this is empty also.
The rest of it is the body of the lambda itself, as if it was a regular function, which we can see just calls the function FNAME.
Another Example
Let's say you had the following signature, that is for something that can sum two numbers.
std::function<int(int, int)> sumFunc;
We could now declare a lambda thusly:
sumFunc = [](int a, int b) { return a + b; };
Not sure if you're using MSVC, but here's a link anyway to the lamda expression syntax:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd293603.aspx
Lambdas with captures (stateful lambdas) cannot be assigned to each other since they have unique types, even if they look exactly the same.
To be able to store and pass around lambdas with captures, we can use "std::function" to hold a function object constructed by a lambda expression.
Basically "std::function" is, to be able to assign lambda functions with different content structures to a lambda function object.
Exp :
auto func = [](int a){
cout << "a:" << a << endl;
};
func(40);
//
int x = 10;
func = [x](int a){ //ATTENTION(ERROR!): assigning a new structure to the same object
cout << "x:" << x << ",a:" << a << endl;
};
func(2);
So the above usage will be incorrect.
But if we define a function object with "std::function":
auto func = std::function<void(int)>{};
func = [](int a){
cout << "a:" << a << endl;
};
func(40);
//
int x = 10;
func = [x](int a){ //CORRECT. because of std::function
//...
};
int y = 11;
func = [x,y](int a){ //CORRECT
//...
};
void(*)(void) is a function pointer while I suppose void(void) is also a way to represent function type. It is used as template parameter in std::function <functional>
What is void(void) and how it is different from void(*)(void)?
What is void(void) and how it is different from void(*)(void)?
They are distinct types. Although the former(void(void)) can be implicitly converted to the latter(void(*)(void)) in many contexts.
The type void(void) is called a function type. The following are also function types:
int (int, int) //this is a function type
void(int) //this is a function type as well
On the other hand, void (*)(void) is a pointer to a function type. That is, it is a pointer that points to a function with 0 parameters and return type of void.
TL;DR
The void(void) is a specification of a function type, it's
signature.
The void(*)(void) is a pointer to function.
These are distinct.
First, let's start by saying, that sometimes the void(void) will be automatically treated as a pointer to function (i.e. in a parameter list). We still can be explicit and use the void(*)(void), but the void(void) will be an equivalent in these cases.
// Here, we explicitly state that the f is a pointer to function
void foo(void (*f)(void), int i);
// Equivalent, f is automatically treated as a pointer to the function
void foo(void f(void), int i);
This will not be the case for the mentioned std::function for example. The types of the two are different, yet may have similar behavior (i.e. we can use the function call operator on a pointer to function).
void bar();
// Prints 1
std::cout << std::is_same<void(void), decltype(bar)>::value << '\n';
// Prints 1 as well
// Note the pointer type specifier
std::cout << std::is_same<void(*)(void), decltype(bar)*>::value << '\n';
// Prints 0
// Note the absence of the pointer type specifier
std::cout << std::is_same<void(*)(void), decltype(bar)>::value << '\n';
And particularly:
// Ok
std::function<decltype(bar)> fn1 = bar;
// error: variable ‘std::function<void (*)()> fn2’ has initializer but incomplete type
std::function<decltype(bar)*> fn2 = bar;
Note, that we can however "store" a pointer to a member function in std::function, but even then the template's parameter still won't be of a pointer to function type, but a plain function signature.
struct MyType {
void func(int) {}
};
int main() {
// Note, we can't have a member function without an instance of the type
// Thus we specify the usually implicit first param and the explicit int param
std::function<void(MyType&, int)> fn_mem = &MyType::func;
MyType my_object;
fn_mem(my_object, 21);
}
For more on std::function please refer to the reference. In short, the use of the std::function instead of the function pointers has the same moto as using the smart pointers instead of the raw pointers.
You may wonder on other uses of the void(void) or int(int) style function type specifications, so here's another example you may see often:
using func_t = int(int);
// func_ptr_func return a pointer to the func_t type alias
func_t* func_ptr_func();
N.B. unlike in the case of a parameter, the compiler won't treat the function type in a return as a pointer to function type. Thus, we must explicitly specify the pointer type in case of the return.
// Here, baz is a function that doesn't take any agruments
// And returns a pointer to a function that takes an int argument and "returns" void
void (*baz())(int);
for void fun(){}, std::is_same_v<void(void)>, decltype(fun)> is true; and std::is_same_v<void(*)(void)>, decltype(&fun)> is true. In fact, those are their real types. However, the standard approve you convert an object that has type void(void) to void(*)(void) implicitly (so you can even write (******funptr)()), that's why we always confuse them.
I had a perception that, type of a lambda is a function pointer. When I performed following test, I found it to be wrong (demo).
#define LAMBDA [] (int i) -> long { return 0; }
int main ()
{
long (*pFptr)(int) = LAMBDA; // ok
auto pAuto = LAMBDA; // ok
assert(typeid(pFptr) == typeid(pAuto)); // assertion fails !
}
Is above code missing any point? If not then, what is the typeof a lambda expression when deduced with auto keyword ?
The type of a lambda expression is unspecified.
But they are generally mere syntactic sugar for functors. A lambda is translated directly into a functor. Anything inside the [] are turned into constructor parameters and members of the functor object, and the parameters inside () are turned into parameters for the functor's operator().
A lambda which captures no variables (nothing inside the []'s) can be converted into a function pointer (MSVC2010 doesn't support this, if that's your compiler, but this conversion is part of the standard).
But the actual type of the lambda isn't a function pointer. It's some unspecified functor type.
It is a unique unnamed structure that overloads the function call operator. Every instance of a lambda introduces a new type.
In the special case of a non-capturing lambda, the structure in addition has an implicit conversion to a function pointer.
[C++11: 5.1.2/3]: The type of the lambda-expression (which is also the type of the closure object) is a unique, unnamed non-union class type — called the closure type — whose properties are described below. This class type is not an aggregate (8.5.1). The closure type is declared in the smallest block scope, class scope, or namespace scope that contains the corresponding lambda-expression. [..]
The clause goes on to list varying properties of this type. Here are some highlights:
[C++11: 5.1.2/5]: The closure type for a lambda-expression has a public inline function call operator (13.5.4) whose parameters and return type are described by the lambda-expression’s parameter-declaration-clause and trailing-return-type respectively. [..]
[C++11: 5.1.2/6]: The closure type for a lambda-expression with no lambda-capture has a public non-virtual non-explicit const conversion function to pointer to function having the same parameter and return types as the closure type’s function call operator. The value returned by this conversion function shall be the address of a function that, when invoked, has the same effect as invoking the closure type’s function call operator.
The consequence of this final passage is that, if you used a conversion, you would be able to assign LAMBDA to pFptr.
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
#define LAMBDA [] (int i)->long { return 0l; }
int main ()
{
long (*pFptr)(int) = LAMBDA; // ok
auto pAuto = LAMBDA; // ok
std::cout<<typeid( *pAuto ).name() << std::endl;
std::cout<<typeid( *pFptr ).name() << std::endl;
std::cout<<typeid( pAuto ).name() << std::endl;
std::cout<<typeid( pFptr ).name() << std::endl;
}
The function types are indeed same, but the lambda introduces new type (like a functor).
It should also note that lambda is convertible to function pointer. However typeid<> returns a non-trvial object which should differ from lambda to generic function pointer. So the test for typeid<> is not a valid assumption. In general C++11 do not want us to worry about type specification, all that matter if a given type is convertible to a target type.
A practical solution from How can I store a boost::bind object as a class member?, try boost::function<void(int)> or std::function<void(int)>.
To further improve jalf's answer
A lambda which captures no variables (nothing inside the []'s) can be converted into a function pointer
for example:
typedef int (*Foo)(int a);
auto bar = [](int a){
return a;
};
int tmp = 1;
auto bar2 = [tmp](int a){
return a+tmp;
};
Foo foo = bar; // this is ok
Foo foo2 = bar2; // this gives C/C++(413)
This might work:
h1 {
font-size:20px;
}
h2{
font-size:18px;
}
p {
font-size: 16px;
}
exmp{
font-size:16px;
color:#000077;
/*font-style: oblique;*/
font-family: Lucida Console;
}
<h1>If you truly insist in defining a datatype other then auto for your lambda variable then I would recommend the following</h1>
<h2>Step 1: </h2>
<p>Typedef a function pointer</p>
<exmp> typedef void(*FuncPointerType)();</exmp>
<p>Note the empty parentheses, this will need to be the same as the arguments later of your lambda <br> Now create a function pointer as you would normaly do.</p>
<exmp>/void (**MyFunction)() = new FuncPointerType([](){});</exmp>
<p>Note that the you will have to go and manually delete the pointer as it is created on the heap<br>Finally call the function pointer, it can be called one of 2 ways:</p>
<exmp>(*(*MyFunction))();</exmp>
<p>OR</p>
<exmp>(*MyFunction)();</exmp>
<p>Note the importance that it should be returnd for a function pointer pointer to just a function pointer.</p>
I'm working with std::bind but I still don't get how it works when we use it with member class functions.
If we have the following function:
double my_divide (double x, double y) {return x/y;}
I understand perfectly well the next lines of code:
auto fn_half = std::bind (my_divide,_1,2); // returns x/2
std::cout << fn_half(10) << '\n'; // 5
But now, with the following code where we have a bind to member function I have some questions.
struct Foo {
void print_sum(int n1, int n2)
{
std::cout << n1+n2 << '\n';
}
int data = 10;
};
Foo foo;
auto f = std::bind(&Foo::print_sum, &foo, 95, _1);
f(5);
Why is the first argument a reference? I'd like to get a theoretical explanation.
The second argument is a reference to the object and it's for me the most complicated part to understand. I think it's because std::bind needs a context, am I right? Is always like this? Has std::bind some sort of implementation to require a reference when the first argument is a member function?
When you say "the first argument is a reference" you surely meant to say "the first argument is a pointer": the & operator takes the address of an object, yielding a pointer.
Before answering this question, let's briefly step back and look at your first use of std::bind() when you use
std::bind(my_divide, 2, 2)
you provide a function. When a function is passed anywhere it decays into a pointer. The above expression is equivalent to this one, explicitly taking the address
std::bind(&my_divide, 2, 2)
The first argument to std::bind() is an object identifying how to call a function. In the above case it is a pointer to function with type double(*)(double, double). Any other callable object with a suitable function call operator would do, too.
Since member functions are quite common, std::bind() provides support for dealing with pointer to member functions. When you use &print_sum you just get a pointer to a member function, i.e., an entity of type void (Foo::*)(int, int). While function names implicitly decay to pointers to functions, i.e., the & can be omitted, the same is not true for member functions (or data members, for that matter): to get a pointer to a member function it is necessary to use the &.
Note that a pointer to member is specific to a class but it can be used with any object that class. That is, it is independent of any particular object. C++ doesn't have a direct way to get a member function directly bound to an object (I think in C# you can obtain functions directly bound to an object by using an object with an applied member name; however, it is 10+ years since I last programmed a bit of C#).
Internally, std::bind() detects that a pointer to a member function is passed and most likely turns it into a callable objects, e.g., by use std::mem_fn() with its first argument. Since a non-static member function needs an object, the first argument to the resolution callable object is either a reference or a [smart] pointer to an object of the appropriate class.
To use a pointer to member function an object is needed. When using a pointer to member with std::bind() the second argument to std::bind() correspondingly needs to specify when the object is coming from. In your example
std::bind(&Foo::print_sum, &foo, 95, _1)
the resulting callable object uses &foo, i.e., a pointer to foo (of type Foo*) as the object. std::bind() is smart enough to use anything which looks like a pointer, anything convertible to a reference of the appropriate type (like std::reference_wrapper<Foo>), or a [copy] of an object as the object when the first argument is a pointer to member.
I suspect, you have never seen a pointer to member - otherwise it would be quite clear. Here is a simple example:
#include <iostream>
struct Foo {
int value;
void f() { std::cout << "f(" << this->value << ")\n"; }
void g() { std::cout << "g(" << this->value << ")\n"; }
};
void apply(Foo* foo1, Foo* foo2, void (Foo::*fun)()) {
(foo1->*fun)(); // call fun on the object foo1
(foo2->*fun)(); // call fun on the object foo2
}
int main() {
Foo foo1{1};
Foo foo2{2};
apply(&foo1, &foo2, &Foo::f);
apply(&foo1, &foo2, &Foo::g);
}
The function apply() simply gets two pointers to Foo objects and a pointer to a member function. It calls the member function pointed to with each of the objects. This funny ->* operator is applying a pointer to a member to a pointer to an object. There is also a .* operator which applies a pointer to a member to an object (or, as they behave just like objects, a reference to an object). Since a pointer to a member function needs an object, it is necessary to use this operator which asks for an object. Internally, std::bind() arranges the same to happen.
When apply() is called with the two pointers and &Foo::f it behaves exactly the same as if the member f() would be called on the respective objects. Likewise when calling apply() with the two pointers and &Foo::g it behaves exactly the same as if the member g() would be called on the respective objects (the semantic behavior is the same but the compiler is likely to have a much harder time inlining functions and typically fails doing so when pointers to members are involved).
From std::bind docs:
bind( F&& f, Args&&... args ); where f is a Callable, in your case that is a pointer to member function. This kind of pointers has some special syntax compared to pointers to usual functions:
typedef void (Foo::*FooMemberPtr)(int, int);
// obtain the pointer to a member function
FooMemberPtr a = &Foo::print_sum; //instead of just a = my_divide
// use it
(foo.*a)(1, 2) //instead of a(1, 2)
std::bind(and std::invoke in general) covers all these cases in a uniform way. If f is a pointer-to-member of Foo, then the first Arg provided to bind is expected to be an instance of Foo (bind(&Foo::print_sum, foo, ...) also works, but foo is copied) or a pointer to Foo, like in example you had.
Here is some more reading about pointers to members, and 1 and 2 gives full information about what bind expects and how it invokes stored function.
You also can use lambdas instead std::bind, which could be more clear:
auto f = [&](int n) { return foo.print_sum(95, n); }
I had a perception that, type of a lambda is a function pointer. When I performed following test, I found it to be wrong (demo).
#define LAMBDA [] (int i) -> long { return 0; }
int main ()
{
long (*pFptr)(int) = LAMBDA; // ok
auto pAuto = LAMBDA; // ok
assert(typeid(pFptr) == typeid(pAuto)); // assertion fails !
}
Is above code missing any point? If not then, what is the typeof a lambda expression when deduced with auto keyword ?
The type of a lambda expression is unspecified.
But they are generally mere syntactic sugar for functors. A lambda is translated directly into a functor. Anything inside the [] are turned into constructor parameters and members of the functor object, and the parameters inside () are turned into parameters for the functor's operator().
A lambda which captures no variables (nothing inside the []'s) can be converted into a function pointer (MSVC2010 doesn't support this, if that's your compiler, but this conversion is part of the standard).
But the actual type of the lambda isn't a function pointer. It's some unspecified functor type.
It is a unique unnamed structure that overloads the function call operator. Every instance of a lambda introduces a new type.
In the special case of a non-capturing lambda, the structure in addition has an implicit conversion to a function pointer.
[C++11: 5.1.2/3]: The type of the lambda-expression (which is also the type of the closure object) is a unique, unnamed non-union class type — called the closure type — whose properties are described below. This class type is not an aggregate (8.5.1). The closure type is declared in the smallest block scope, class scope, or namespace scope that contains the corresponding lambda-expression. [..]
The clause goes on to list varying properties of this type. Here are some highlights:
[C++11: 5.1.2/5]: The closure type for a lambda-expression has a public inline function call operator (13.5.4) whose parameters and return type are described by the lambda-expression’s parameter-declaration-clause and trailing-return-type respectively. [..]
[C++11: 5.1.2/6]: The closure type for a lambda-expression with no lambda-capture has a public non-virtual non-explicit const conversion function to pointer to function having the same parameter and return types as the closure type’s function call operator. The value returned by this conversion function shall be the address of a function that, when invoked, has the same effect as invoking the closure type’s function call operator.
The consequence of this final passage is that, if you used a conversion, you would be able to assign LAMBDA to pFptr.
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
#define LAMBDA [] (int i)->long { return 0l; }
int main ()
{
long (*pFptr)(int) = LAMBDA; // ok
auto pAuto = LAMBDA; // ok
std::cout<<typeid( *pAuto ).name() << std::endl;
std::cout<<typeid( *pFptr ).name() << std::endl;
std::cout<<typeid( pAuto ).name() << std::endl;
std::cout<<typeid( pFptr ).name() << std::endl;
}
The function types are indeed same, but the lambda introduces new type (like a functor).
It should also note that lambda is convertible to function pointer. However typeid<> returns a non-trvial object which should differ from lambda to generic function pointer. So the test for typeid<> is not a valid assumption. In general C++11 do not want us to worry about type specification, all that matter if a given type is convertible to a target type.
A practical solution from How can I store a boost::bind object as a class member?, try boost::function<void(int)> or std::function<void(int)>.
To further improve jalf's answer
A lambda which captures no variables (nothing inside the []'s) can be converted into a function pointer
for example:
typedef int (*Foo)(int a);
auto bar = [](int a){
return a;
};
int tmp = 1;
auto bar2 = [tmp](int a){
return a+tmp;
};
Foo foo = bar; // this is ok
Foo foo2 = bar2; // this gives C/C++(413)
This might work:
h1 {
font-size:20px;
}
h2{
font-size:18px;
}
p {
font-size: 16px;
}
exmp{
font-size:16px;
color:#000077;
/*font-style: oblique;*/
font-family: Lucida Console;
}
<h1>If you truly insist in defining a datatype other then auto for your lambda variable then I would recommend the following</h1>
<h2>Step 1: </h2>
<p>Typedef a function pointer</p>
<exmp> typedef void(*FuncPointerType)();</exmp>
<p>Note the empty parentheses, this will need to be the same as the arguments later of your lambda <br> Now create a function pointer as you would normaly do.</p>
<exmp>/void (**MyFunction)() = new FuncPointerType([](){});</exmp>
<p>Note that the you will have to go and manually delete the pointer as it is created on the heap<br>Finally call the function pointer, it can be called one of 2 ways:</p>
<exmp>(*(*MyFunction))();</exmp>
<p>OR</p>
<exmp>(*MyFunction)();</exmp>
<p>Note the importance that it should be returnd for a function pointer pointer to just a function pointer.</p>