Something is not working quite well for me. Is this the way to declare a class, that accepts only floating point template parameter?
template <typename T, swift::enable_if<std::is_floating_point<T>::value> = nullptr>
class my_float;
I fail to define methods outside this class. Doesn't compile, not sure why
Well... not exactly SFINAE... but maybe, using template specialization? Something as follows ?
template <typename T, bool = std::is_floating_point<T>::value>
class my_float;
template <typename T>
class my_float<T, true>
{
// ...
};
If you really want use SFINAE, you can write
template <typename T,
typename = typename std::enable_if<std::is_floating_point<T>::value>::type>
class my_float
{
// ...
};
or also (observe the pointer there isn't in your example)
template <typename T,
typename std::enable_if<std::is_floating_point<T>::value>::type * = nullptr>
class my_float // ------------------------------------------------^
{
};
-- EDIT --
As suggested by Yakk (thanks!), you can mix SFINAE and template specialization to develop different version of your class for different groups of types.
By example, the following my_class
template <typename T, typename = void>
class my_class;
template <typename T>
class my_class<T,
typename std::enable_if<std::is_floating_point<T>::value>::type>
{
// ...
};
template <typename T>
class my_class<T,
typename std::enable_if<std::is_integral<T>::value>::type>
{
// ...
};
is developed for in two versions (two different partial specializations), the first one for floating point types, the second one for integral types. And can be easily extended.
You can also use static_assert to poison invalid types.
template <typename T>
class my_float {
static_assert(std::is_floating_point<T>::value,
"T is not a floating point type");
// . . .
};
It's a little bit more direct, in my opinion.
With either of the other approaches, e.g.
template <typename T, bool = std::is_floating_point<T>::value>
class my_float;
template <typename T> class my_float<T, true> { /* . . . */ };
my_float<int,true> is a valid type. I'm not saying that that's a bad approach, but if you want to avoid this, you'll have to encapsulate
my_float<typename,bool> within another template, to avoid exposing the bool template parameter.
indeed, something like this worked for me (thanks to SU3's answer).
template<typename T, bool B = false>
struct enable_if {};
template<typename T>
struct enable_if<T, true> {
static const bool value = true;
};
template<typename T, bool b = enable_if<T,is_allowed<T>::value>::value >
class Timer{ void start(); };
template<typename T, bool b>
void Timer<T,b>::start()
{ \* *** \*}
I am posting this answer because I did not want to use partial specialization, but only define the behavior of the class outside.
a complete workable example:
typedef std::integral_constant<bool, true> true_type;
typedef std::integral_constant<bool, false> false_type;
struct Time_unit {
};
struct time_unit_seconds : public Time_unit {
using type = std::chrono::seconds;
};
struct time_unit_micro : public Time_unit {
using type = std::chrono::microseconds;
};
template<typename T, bool B = false>
struct enable_if {
};
template<typename T>
struct enable_if<T, true> {
const static bool value = true;
};
template<typename T,
bool b = enable_if<T,
std::is_base_of<Time_unit,
T>::value
>::value>
struct Timer {
int start();
};
template<typename T, bool b>
int Timer<T, b>::start() { return 1; }
int main() {
Timer<time_unit_seconds> t;
Timer<time_unit_micro> t2;
// Timer<double> t3; does not work !
return 0;
}
Related
I am trying to customize a base classes' implementation based on the functions available in a child class using CRTP.
Basic idea of what I want:
// has_inc_function<Child, void> should detect the presence of a member function void Child::inc()
template<class Child, bool = has_inc_function<Child, void>::value>
struct base
{
// ... base implementation stuff
};
template<class Child>
struct base<Child, true>
{
// ... base specialization implementation stuff
};
struct empty : public base<empty>
{};
struct has_inc
{
void inc()
{}
};
struct has_inc_and_crtp : public base<has_inc_and_crtp>
{
void inc()
{}
};
struct has_inc_and_misuse_crtp : public base<has_inc_and_misuse_crtp, true>
{
void inc()
{}
};
struct has_inc_and_misuse_crtp2 : public base<has_inc_and_misuse_crtp, false>
{
void inc()
{}
};
struct no_inc_and_misuse_crtp : public base<no_inc_and_misuse_crtp, true>
{
};
int main()
{
static_assert(has_inc_function<empty, void>::value == false, "");
static_assert(has_inc_function<has_inc, void>::value == true, "");
static_assert(has_inc_function<has_inc_and_crtp, void>::value == true, "");
static_assert(has_inc_function<has_inc_and_misuse_crtp, void>::value == true, "");
static_assert(has_inc_function<has_inc_and_misuse_crtp2, void>::value == true, "");
static_assert(has_inc_function<no_inc_and_misuse_crtp, void>::value == false, "");
}
I've tried a variety of different implementations for has_inc_function<Child, void>, but all of them seem to fail on the case has_inc_and_crtp, and I can't figure out why. I tested with several different compilers via Compiler Explorer, and they all seem to give the same results.
How would I implement has_inc_function so that it works as I would expect in all these test case, or is what I want just not possible?
Implementations I've tried
jrok's solution (Compiler Explorer link):
template <class C, class Ret>
struct has_increment<C, Ret>
{
private:
template <class T>
static constexpr auto check(T*) -> typename std::is_same<
decltype(std::declval<T>().inc()), Ret>::type;
template <typename> static constexpr std::false_type check(...);
typedef decltype(check<C>(nullptr)) type;
public:
static constexpr bool value = type::value;
};
TartanLlama's solution (Compiler Explorer link):
note: that is implementation doesn't match the return type. I've also included sample implementations of stuff in Library fundamentals TS v2 to make this work in C++14
struct nonesuch
{
~nonesuch() = delete;
nonesuch(nonesuch const&) = delete;
void operator=(nonesuch const&) = delete;
};
namespace detail {
template <class Default, class AlwaysVoid,
template<class...> class Op, class... Args>
struct detector {
using value_t = std::false_type;
using type = Default;
};
template <class Default, template<class...> class Op, class... Args>
struct detector<Default, std::void_t<Op<Args...>>, Op, Args...> {
using value_t = std::true_type;
using type = Op<Args...>;
};
} // namespace detail
template <template<class...> class Op, class... Args>
using is_detected = typename detail::detector<nonesuch, void, Op, Args...>::value_t;
template <template<class...> class Op, class... Args>
using detected_t = typename detail::detector<nonesuch, void, Op, Args...>::type;
template <class Default, template<class...> class Op, class... Args>
using detected_or = detail::detector<Default, void, Op, Args...>;
template<class...> struct disjunction : std::false_type { };
template<class B1> struct disjunction<B1> : B1 { };
template<class B1, class... Bn>
struct disjunction<B1, Bn...>
: std::conditional_t<bool(B1::value), B1, disjunction<Bn...>> { };
template <typename T>
using has_type_t = typename T::inc;
template <typename T>
using has_non_type_t = decltype(&T::inc);
template <typename T, class RetType>
using has_inc_function =
disjunction<is_detected<has_type_t, T>, is_detected<has_non_type_t, T>>;
Valentin Milea's solution (Compiler Explorer Link):
template <class C, class RetType>
class has_inc_function
{
template <class T>
static std::true_type testSignature(RetType (T::*)());
template <class T>
static decltype(testSignature(&T::inc)) test(std::nullptr_t);
template <class T>
static std::false_type test(...);
public:
using type = decltype(test<C>(nullptr));
static const bool value = type::value;
};
Boost TTI (I couldn't figure out how to get Boost to work with Compiler Explorer):
#include <boost/tti/has_member_function.hpp>
BOOST_TTI_TRAIT_HAS_MEMBER_FUNCTION(has_inc_function, inc);
What you want is in this form plainly not possible. The parent of a class has to be known before the class is complete, and hence before it is known whether the class has such a member function or not.
What you can do is a bit dependent on how different the different instantiations of base are. If they are basically the same interface with different implementation details, you can write another class that has the same interface and a variant member (std::variant is sadly C++17, but you could do the same with dynamic polymorphism) to which all calls are forwarded. Then the decision which to use can be done when instantiating.
You could also try something in this direction:
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
template<class Child>
struct base {
int foo();
};
struct has_inc: base<has_inc> {
void inc();
};
struct has_not_inc: base<has_not_inc> {
};
template<class Child, class = std::void_t<decltype(std::declval<Child>().inc())>>
struct mock {
int foo(base<Child>*) { return 1;}
};
template<class Child>
struct mock<Child> {
int foo(base<Child>*) { return 0;}
};
template<class Child>
int base<Child>::foo() {
return mock<Child,void>().foo(this);
}
int main() {
has_inc h;
has_not_inc n;
std::cout << h.foo() << " " << n.foo() << '\n';
}
Here you only use the complete child of type in the definition, not in the declaration. To the point of the definition, the complete child is available, which it was not during declaration.
There are also other ways (I think, everything is not that easy) and what you can use really depends on your use-case, I would think.
PS: std::void_t is C++17, but it is only template<class...> using void_t = void;.
I've tried a variety of different implementations for has_inc_function<Child, void>, but all of them seem to fail on the case has_inc_and_crtp, and I can't figure out why.
The problem (if I understand correctly) is that, in the has_inc_and_crpt case, the value of has_inc_function is first evaluated to determine the default value for the Childs second template parameter
template<class Child, bool = has_inc_function<Child, void>::value>
struct base
that is when Child (that is has_inc_and_crpt) is still incomplete, so the value if false, and in the following use
static_assert(has_inc_function<has_inc_and_crtp, void>::value == true, "");
remain false.
How would I implement has_inc_function so that it works as I would expect in all these test case, or is what I want just not possible?
A quick and dirty solution could be add an additional dummy defaulted template parameter to has_inc_function.
By example
// ................................VVVVVVV dummy and defaulted
template <typename C, typename RT, int = 0>
struct has_inc_function
then use it in base explicating a special (different from the default) parameter
// ........................................................V different from the default
template<class Child, bool = has_inc_function<Child, void, 1>::value>
struct base
So, when you use has_inc_functin in the static assert,
static_assert(has_inc_function<has_inc_and_crtp, void>::value == true, "");
the class is different, is evaluated in that moment and has_inc_and_crpt is detected with inc() method.
But this only resolve the problem at test case (static_assert()) level.
Still remain the problem (a problem that I don't how to solve) that, declaring base, the default value remain false. So (I suppose) has_inc_and_crpt still select the wrong base base.
The following is a full compiling example, following the jrok's solution.
#include <type_traits>
template <typename C, typename RT, int = 0>
struct has_inc_function
{
private:
template <typename T>
static constexpr auto check(T *) ->
typename std::is_same<decltype(std::declval<T>().inc()), RT>::type;
template <typename>
static constexpr std::false_type check(...);
using type = decltype(check<C>(nullptr));
public:
/// #brief True if there is an inc member function
static constexpr bool value = type::value;
};
template <typename Child, bool = has_inc_function<Child, void, 1>::value>
struct base
{ };
template <typename Child>
struct base<Child, true>
{ };
struct empty : public base<empty>
{ };
struct has_inc
{ void inc() {} };
struct has_inc_and_crtp : public base<has_inc_and_crtp>
{ void inc() {} };
struct has_inc_and_misuse_crtp : public base<has_inc_and_misuse_crtp, true>
{ void inc() {} };
struct has_inc_and_misuse_crtp2 : public base<has_inc_and_misuse_crtp, false>
{ void inc() {} };
struct no_inc_and_misuse_crtp : public base<no_inc_and_misuse_crtp, true>
{ };
template <typename C, typename RT>
constexpr auto hif_v = has_inc_function<C, RT>::value;
int main ()
{
static_assert(hif_v<empty, void> == false, "");
static_assert(hif_v<has_inc, void> == true, "");
static_assert(hif_v<has_inc_and_crtp, void> == true, "");
static_assert(hif_v<has_inc_and_misuse_crtp, void> == true, "");
static_assert(hif_v<has_inc_and_misuse_crtp2, void> == true, "");
static_assert(hif_v<no_inc_and_misuse_crtp, void> == false, "");
}
I want to implement a class template that:
behaves like a function
it's input and output variables are all shared.
relatively easy to use.
As a result, I construct the following:
// all input/output variable's base class
class basic_logic_parameter;
// input/output variable, has theire value and iterators to functions that reference to this variable
template <typename FuncIterator, typename ValueType>
class logic_parameter
:public basic_logic_parameter
{
private:
std::list<FuncIterator> _refedFuncs;
ValueType _val;
public:
};
// all `function`'s base class
class basic_logic_function
{
public:
virtual ~basic_logic_function() = 0;
};
// the function, has input/output variable
template <typename FuncIterator, typename R, typename... Args>
class logic_function_base
:public basic_logic_function
{
private:
std::shared_ptr<logic_parameter<FuncIterator, R>> _ret;
std::tuple<std::shared_ptr<logic_parameter<FuncIterator, Args>>...> _args;
public:
template <std::size_t N>
decltype(auto) arg()
{
return std::get<N>(_args);
}
template <std::size_t N>
struct arg_type
{
typedef std::tuple_element_t<N> type;
};
template <std::size_t N>
using arg_type_t = arg_type<N>::type;
decltype(auto) ret()
{
return _ret;
}
};
I wish to use as these like:
// drawing need color and a pen
struct Color
{
};
struct Pen
{
};
struct Iter
{
};
class Drawer
:public logic_function_base<Iter, void(Color, Pen)>
{
public:
void draw()
{
arg_type_t<0> pColor; // wrong
}
}
My compiler can not pass this code through, why? I just want convert a template parameter pack to std::tuple of std::shared_ptr of them.
for example:
Given struct A, int, struct C, I want to have:
std::tuple<
std::shared_ptr<logic_parameter<A>>,
std::shared_ptr<logic_parameter<int>>,
std::shared_ptr<logic_parameter<C>>,
>
The problem (once the small errors are fixed1) is that you instantiate:
logic_function_base<Iter, void(Color, Pen)>
...meaning that FuncIterator is Iter and R is void(Color, Pen), so Args is emtpy <>, so decltype(_args) is an empty std::tuple<>, and your code fails to obtain the type of the 0th element of an empty tuple, which is legit.
What you want is partial specialization of logic_function_base:
template <typename F, typename T>
class logic_function_base;
template <typename FuncIterator, typename R, typename... Args>
class logic_function_base<FuncIterator, R(Args...)>: public basic_logic_function {
};
1 Small mistakes in your current code:
template <std::size_t N>
struct arg_type
{
typedef std::tuple_element_t<N, decltype(_args)> type; // Missing the tuple type
};
template <std::size_t N>
using arg_type_t = typename arg_type<N>::type; // Missing a typename
This may not answer your whole question, but you could use the following trait to wrap tuple element types.
template <typename T> struct wrap;
template <typename... T>
struct wrap<std::tuple<T...>> {
using type = std::tuple<std::shared_ptr<logic_parameter<T>>...>;
}
template <typename T>
using wrap_t = typename wrap<T>::type;
You can then use it like this:
std::tuple<int,double,char> t1;
wrap_t<decltype(t)> t2;
The type of t2 is std::tuple<std::shared_ptr<logic_parameter<int>>,std::shared_ptr<logic_parameter<double>>,std::shared_ptr<logic_parameter<char>>>.
I am currently doing some template metaprogramming. In my case I can handle any "iteratable" type, i.e. any type for which a typedef foo const_iterator exists in the same manner. I was trying to use the new C++11 template metaprogramming for this, however I could not find a method to detect if a certain type is missing.
Because I also need to turn on/off other template specializations based on other characteristics, I am currently using a template with two parameters, and the second one gets produced via std::enable_if. Here is what I am currently doing:
template <typename T, typename Enable = void>
struct Foo{}; // default case is invalid
template <typename T>
struct Foo< T, typename std::enable_if<std::is_fundamental<T>::value>::type>{
void do_stuff(){ ... }
};
template<typename T>
struct exists{
static const bool value = true;
};
template<typename T>
struct Foo<T, typename std::enable_if<exists< typename T::const_iterator >::value >::type> {
void do_stuff(){ ... }
};
I was not able to do something like this without the exists helper template. For example simply doing
template<typename T>
struct Foo<T, typename T::const_iterator> {
void do_stuff(){ ... }
};
did not work, because in those cases where this specialization should be used, the invalid default case was instantiated instead.
However I could not find this exists anywhere in the new C++11 standard, which as far as I know simply is taking from boost::type_traits for this kind of stuff. However on the homepage for boost::type_traits does not show any reference to anything that could be used instead.
Is this functionality missing, or did I overlook some other obvious way to achieve the desired behavior?
If you simply want if a given type contains const_iterator then following is a simplified version of your code:
template<typename T>
struct void_ { typedef void type; };
template<typename T, typename = void>
struct Foo {};
template<typename T>
struct Foo <T, typename void_<typename T::const_iterator>::type> {
void do_stuff(){ ... }
};
See this answer for some explanation of how this technique works.
You can create a trait has_const_iterator that provides a boolean value and use that in the specialization.
Something like this might do it:
template <typename T>
struct has_const_iterator {
private:
template <typename T1>
static typename T1::const_iterator test(int);
template <typename>
static void test(...);
public:
enum { value = !std::is_void<decltype(test<T>(0))>::value };
};
And then you can specialize like this:
template <typename T,
bool IsFundamental = std::is_fundamental<T>::value,
bool HasConstIterator = has_const_iterator<T>::value>
struct Foo; // default case is invalid, so no definition!
template <typename T>
struct Foo< T, true, false>{
void do_stuff(){// bla }
};
template<typename T>
struct Foo<T, false, true> {
void do_stuff(){//bla}
};
Here's another version of a member type trait check:
template<typename T>
struct has_const_iterator
{
private:
typedef char yes;
typedef struct { char array[2]; } no;
template<typename C> static yes test(typename C::const_iterator*);
template<typename C> static no test(...);
public:
static const bool value = sizeof(test<T>(0)) == sizeof(yes);
};
There is a couple of ways to do this. In C++03, you could use boost and enable_if to define the trait (docs, source):
BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_DEF(const_iterator);
template <typename T, typename Enable = void>
struct Foo;
template <typename T>
struct Foo< T, typename boost::enable_if<boost::is_fundamental<T> >::type>{
void do_stuff(){ ... }
};
template<typename T>
struct Foo<T, typename boost::enable_if<has_const_iterator<T> >::type> {
void do_stuff(){ ... }
};
In C++11, you could use Tick like this:
TICK_TRAIT(has_const_iterator)
{
template<class T>
auto require(const T&) -> valid<
has_type<typename T::const_iterator>
>;
};
template <typename T, typename Enable = void>
struct Foo;
template <typename T>
struct Foo< T, TICK_CLASS_REQUIRES(std::is_fundamental<T>::value)>{
void do_stuff(){ ... }
};
template<typename T>
struct Foo<T, TICK_CLASS_REQUIRES(has_const_iterator<T>())> {
void do_stuff(){ ... }
};
Also with Tick you can further enhance the trait to actually detect that the const_iterator is actually an iterator, as well. So say we define a simple is_iterator trait like this:
TICK_TRAIT(is_iterator,
std::is_copy_constructible<_>)
{
template<class I>
auto require(I&& i) -> valid<
decltype(*i),
decltype(++i)
>;
};
We can then define has_const_iterator trait to check that the const_iterator type matches the is_iterator trait like this:
TICK_TRAIT(has_const_iterator)
{
template<class T>
auto require(const T&) -> valid<
has_type<typename T::const_iterator, is_iterator<_>>
>;
};
I'm trying to check whether a functor is compatible with a given set of parametertypes and a given return type (that is, the given parametertypes can be implicitely converted to the actual parametertypes and the other way around for the return type). Currently I use the following code for this:
template<typename T, typename R, template<typename U, typename V> class Comparer>
struct check_type
{ enum {value = Comparer<T, R>::value}; };
template<typename T, typename Return, typename... Args>
struct is_functor_compatible
{
struct base: public T
{
using T::operator();
std::false_type operator()(...)const;
};
enum {value = check_type<decltype(std::declval<base>()(std::declval<Args>()...)), Return, std::is_convertible>::value};
};
check_type<T, V, Comparer>
This works quite nicely in the majority of cases, however it fails to compile when I'm testing parameterless functors like struct foo{ int operator()() const;};, beccause in that case the two operator() of base are apperently ambigous, leading to something like this:
error: call of '(is_functor_compatible<foo, void>::base) ()' is ambiguous
note: candidates are:
note: std::false_type is_functor_compatible<T, Return, Args>::base::operator()(...) const [with T = foo, Return = void, Args = {}, std::false_type = std::integral_constant<bool, false>]
note: int foo::operator()() const
So obvoiusly I need a different way to check this for parameterless functors. I tried making a partial specialization of is_functor_compatible for an empty parameterpack, where I check if the type of &T::operator() is a parameterless memberfunction, which works more or less. However this approach obviously fails when the tested functor has several operator().
Therefore my question is if there is a better way to test for the existence of a parameterless operator() and how to do it.
When I want to test if a given expression is valid for a type, I use a structure similar to this one:
template <typename T>
struct is_callable_without_parameters {
private:
template <typename T1>
static decltype(std::declval<T1>()(), void(), 0) test(int);
template <typename>
static void test(...);
public:
enum { value = !std::is_void<decltype(test<T>(0))>::value };
};
Have you tried something like:
template<size_t>
class Discrim
{
};
template<typename T>
std::true_type hasFunctionCallOper( T*, Discrim<sizeof(T()())>* );
template<typename T>
std::false_type hasFunctionCallOper( T*, ... );
After, you discriminate on the return type of
hasFunctionCallOper((T*)0, 0).
EDITED (thanks to the suggestion of R. Martinho Fernandes):
Here's the code that works:
template<size_t n>
class CallOpDiscrim {};
template<typename T>
TrueType hasCallOp( T*, CallOpDiscrim< sizeof( (*((T const*)0))(), 1 ) > const* );
template<typename T>
FalseType hasCallOp( T* ... );
template<typename T, bool hasCallOp>
class TestImpl;
template<typename T>
class TestImpl<T, false>
{
public:
void doTellIt() { std::cout << typeid(T).name() << " does not have operator()" << std::endl; }
};
template<typename T>
class TestImpl<T, true>
{
public:
void doTellIt() { std::cout << typeid(T).name() << " has operator()" << std::endl; }
};
template<typename T>
class Test : private TestImpl<T, sizeof(hasCallOp<T>(0, 0)) == sizeof(TrueType)>
{
public:
void tellIt() { this->doTellIt(); }
};
Consider the following class, with the inner struct Y being used as a type, eg. in templates, later on:
template<int I>
class X{
template<class T1>
struct Y{};
template<class T1, class T2>
struct Y{};
};
Now, this example will obviously not compile, with the error that the second X<I>::Y has already been defined or that it has too many template parameters.
I'd like to resolve that without (extra) partial specialization, since the int I parameter isn't the only one and the position of it can differ in different partial specializations (my actual struct looks more like this, the above is just for simplicity of the question), so I'd like one class fits every I solution.
My first thought was obviously enable_if, but that seems to fail on me, eg. I still get the same errors:
// assuming C++11 support, else use boost
#include <type_traits>
template<int I>
class X{
template<class T1, class = std::enable_if<I==1>::type>
struct Y{};
template<class T1, class T2, class = std::enable_if<I==2>::type>
struct Y{};
};
So, since enable_if fails, I hope there is another way to achieve the following compile time check:
template<int I>
class X{
__include_if(I == 1){
template<class T1>
struct Y{};
}
__include_if(I == 2){
template<class T1, class T2>
struct Y{};
}
};
It would just be to save me a lot of code duplication, but I'd be really happy if it was somehow possible.
Edit: Sadly, I can't use the obvious: variadic templates, as I'm using Visual Studio 2010, so only the C++0x stuff that is supported there I can use. :/
There are two problems here:
enable_if works with partial specialization, not primary templates.
The number of externally-visible arguments is determined by the primary template, of which there may be only one.
Answer 1.
As you suggested in chat, a linked list of templates can emulate the variadic parameter pack.
template<int I>
class X{
template<class list, class = void>
struct Y;
template<class list>
struct Y< list, typename std::enable_if<I==1>::type > {
typedef typename list::type t1;
};
template<class list>
struct Y< list, typename std::enable_if<I==2>::type > {
typedef typename list::type t1;
typedef typename list::next::type t2;
};
};
If you end up with next::next::next garbage, it's easy to write a metafunction, or use Boost MPL.
Answer 2.
The different-arity templates can be named similarly but still stay distinct if they are nested inside the SFINAE-controlled type.
template<int I>
class X{
template<typename = void, typename = void>
struct Z;
template<typename v>
struct Z< v, typename std::enable_if<I==1>::type > {
template<class T1>
struct Y{};
};
template<typename v>
struct Z< v, typename std::enable_if<I==2>::type > {
template<class T1, class T2>
struct Y{};
};
};
X<1>::Z<>::Y< int > a;
X<2>::Z<>::Y< char, double > b;
Here you go:
http://ideone.com/AdEfl
And the code:
#include <iostream>
template <int I>
struct Traits
{
struct inner{};
};
template <>
struct Traits<1>
{
struct inner{
template<class T1>
struct impl{
impl() { std::cout << "impl<T1>" << std::endl; }
};
};
};
template <>
struct Traits<2>
{
struct inner{
template<class T1, class T2>
struct impl{
impl() { std::cout << "impl<T1, T2>" << std::endl; }
};
};
};
template<class T>
struct Test{};
template<class T, class K>
struct Foo{};
template<int I>
struct arg{};
template<
template<class, class> class T,
class P1, int I
>
struct Test< T<P1, arg<I> > >{
typedef typename Traits<I>::inner inner;
};
template<
template<class, class> class T,
class P2, int I
>
struct Test< T<arg<I>, P2 > >{
typedef typename Traits<I>::inner inner;
};
// and a bunch of other partial specializations
int main(){
typename Test<Foo<int, arg<1> > >::inner::impl<int> b;
typename Test<Foo<int, arg<2> > >::inner::impl<int, double> c;
}
Explanation: Basically it's an extension of the idea of partial specialization, however the difference is that rather than specializing within Test, delegate to a specific class that can be specialized on I alone. That way you only need to define versions of inner for each I once. Then multiple specializations of Test can re-use. The inner holder is used to make the typedef in the Test class easier to handle.
EDIT: here is a test case that shows what happens if you pass in the wrong number of template arguments: http://ideone.com/QzgNP
Can you try below (it is not partial specialization):
template<int I>
class X
{
};
template<>
class X<1>
{
template<class T1>
struct Y{};
};
template<>
class X<2>
{
template<class T1, class T2>
struct Y{};
};
I doubt if the answer is that simple !!
Edit (Mocking Partial specialization):
#Xeo, I was able to compile following code and seems to be fullfilling.
template<int I>
struct X
{
struct Unused {}; // this mocking structure will never be used
template<class T1, class T2 = Unused> // if 2 params passed-->ok; else default='Unused'
struct Y{};
template<class T1>
struct Y<T1, Unused>{}; // This is specialization of above, define it your way
};
int main()
{
X<1>::Y<int> o1; // Y<T1 = int, T2 = Unused> called
X<2>::Y<int, float> o2; // Y<T1 = int, T2 = float> called
}
Here, however you can use X<1>, X<2> interchangeably. But in the broader example you mentioned, that is irrelevant. Still if you need, you can put checks for I = 1 and I = 2.
How about this approach - http://sergey-miryanov.blogspot.com/2009/03/template-class-overriding.html? (sorry for russian)
You can use a meta function (here: inlined boost::mpl::if_c, but could be arbitrarily complex) to select the one you want. You need some scaffolding to be able to use constructors, though:
template <int I>
class X {
template <typename T1>
class YforIeq1 { /* meat of the class */ };
template <typename T1, typename T2>
class YforIeq2 { /* meat of the class */ };
public:
template <typename T1, typename T2=boost::none_t/*e.g.*/>
struct Y : boost::mpl::if_c<I==1,YforIeq1<T1>,YforIeq2<T1,T2> >::type {
typedef typename mpl::if_c<I==1,YforIeq1<T1>,YforIeq2<T1,T2> >::type YBase;
/* ctor forwarding: C++0x */
using YBase::YBase;
/* ctor forwarding: C++03 (runs into perfect fwd'ing problem)*/
Y() : YBase() {}
template <typename A1>
Y(const A1&a1) : YBase(a1) {}
template <typename A1, typename A2>
Y(const A1&a1, const A2&a2) : YBase(a1,a2) {}
// ...
};
};
If there's a problem with both YforIeqN being instantiated for each X, then you can try wrapping them as a nullary meta function (something along the way mpl::apply does) and use mpl::eval_if_c.