Goal
My objective is to call StaticLibrary::func() from the property (unnamed class) on Environment using the dot syntax.
For example:
env.bar.func();
I have been able to achieve static_cast<StaticLibrary>(env.bar).func();, which is close, but the syntax is still too cumbersome.
Question
Can the static cast be inferred, or can I overload some operator to get the desired syntax?
NOTE: I have a constraint that I cannot put StaticLibrary directly as a public member of the Environment class (object, reference or pointer).
Error
I currently get the error (which I understand, but pasted here for completeness):
unnamedDotSyntax.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
unnamedDotSyntax.cpp:48:13: error: ‘class Environment::<anonymous>’ has no member named ‘func’
env.bar.func();
^
Code
The example below is the most distilled version of the code I can offer.
#include <iostream>
class StaticLibrary {
public:
int func (void) {
std::cout << "called " << __FUNCTION__ << std::endl;
}
};
class Environment {
public:
Environment (void) {
bar.sl = &sl;
}
inline
int foo (void) {
std::cout << "called " << __FUNCTION__ << std::endl;
}
class {
friend Environment;
public:
operator StaticLibrary & (void) {
return *sl;
}
private:
StaticLibrary * sl;
} bar;
private:
StaticLibrary sl;
};
int main (void) {
Environment env;
env.foo();
// Works
StaticLibrary sl = env.bar;
sl.func();
// Works, but the syntax is too cumbersome. Can the static cast be inferred somehow?
static_cast<StaticLibrary>(env.bar).func();
// unnamedDotSyntax.cpp:48:13: error: ‘class Environment::<anonymous>’ has no member named ‘func’
// env.bar.func();
env.bar.func();
}
NOTE: This must be GCC compatible not Microsoft VC++
For the nested class there is no way around replicating the interface of StaticLibrary, because the member access operator (.) does not apply any conversions. So to call func() on bar you need to have a member function func() in bar. It does not suffice if bar converts to something that has a member function func() (because this could be ambiguous).
That is to say, you could wrap the interface of StaticLibrary inside bar by having a delegating member function int func() { return sl.func(); } or you make bar a public data member of type StaticLibrary (which was forbidden by your constraint).
Here I gave the nested class a name because it makes the errors more readable and I store a reference rather than a pointer because I like value semantics.
#include <iostream>
class StaticLibrary {
public:
int func() {
std::cout << "called " << __FUNCTION__ << std::endl;
return 0;
}
};
class Environment {
private:
StaticLibrary sl;
public:
class Bar {
friend Environment;
StaticLibrary& sl;
public:
explicit Bar(StaticLibrary& _sl) : sl(_sl) {};
operator StaticLibrary& () { return sl; }
int func() { return sl.func(); }
} bar;
Environment() : sl{}, bar{sl} {};
int foo() {
std::cout << "called " << __FUNCTION__ << std::endl;
return 0;
}
};
int main (void) {
Environment env;
env.foo();
// Works
StaticLibrary sl = env.bar;
sl.func();
// Works, but the syntax is too cumbersome. Can the static cast be inferred somehow?
static_cast<StaticLibrary>(env.bar).func();
// unnamedDotSyntax.cpp:48:13: error: ‘class Environment::<anonymous>’ has no member named ‘func’
// env.bar.func();
env.bar.func();
}
Related
I have a class with two constructors, one that takes no arguments and one that takes one argument.
Creating objects using the constructor that takes one argument works as expected. However, if I create objects using the constructor that takes no arguments, I get an error.
For instance, if I compile this code (using g++ 4.0.1)...
class Foo
{
public:
Foo() {};
Foo(int a) {};
void bar() {};
};
int main()
{
// this works...
Foo foo1(1);
foo1.bar();
// this does not...
Foo foo2();
foo2.bar();
return 0;
}
... I get the following error:
nonclass.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, const char**)’:
nonclass.cpp:17: error: request for member ‘bar’ in ‘foo2’, which is of non-class type ‘Foo ()()’
Why is this, and how do I make it work?
Foo foo2();
change to
Foo foo2;
You get the error because compiler thinks of
Foo foo2()
as of function declaration with name 'foo2' and the return type 'Foo'.
But in that case If we change to Foo foo2 , the compiler might show the error " call of overloaded ‘Foo()’ is ambiguous".
Just for the record..
It is actually not a solution to your code, but I had the same error message when incorrectly accessing the method of a class instance pointed to by myPointerToClass, e.g.
MyClass* myPointerToClass = new MyClass();
myPointerToClass.aMethodOfThatClass();
where
myPointerToClass->aMethodOfThatClass();
would obviously be correct.
Parenthesis is not required to instantiate a class object when you don't intend to use a parameterised constructor.
Just use Foo foo2;
It will work.
Adding to the knowledge base, I got the same error for
if(class_iter->num == *int_iter)
Even though the IDE gave me the correct members for class_iter. Obviously, the problem is that "anything"::iterator doesn't have a member called num so I need to dereference it. Which doesn't work like this:
if(*class_iter->num == *int_iter)
...apparently. I eventually solved it with this:
if((*class_iter)->num == *int_iter)
I hope this helps someone who runs across this question the way I did.
I was having a similar error, it seems that the compiler misunderstand the call to the constructor without arguments. I made it work by removing the parenthesis from the variable declaration, in your code something like this:
class Foo
{
public:
Foo() {};
Foo(int a) {};
void bar() {};
};
int main()
{
// this works...
Foo foo1(1);
foo1.bar();
// this does not...
Foo foo2; // Without "()"
foo2.bar();
return 0;
}
I ran into a case where I got that error message and had
Foo foo(Bar());
and was basically trying to pass in a temporary Bar object to the Foo constructor. Turns out the compiler was translating this to
Foo foo(Bar(*)());
that is, a function declaration whose name is foo that returns a Foo that takes in an argument -- a function pointer returning a Bar with 0 arguments. When passing in temporaries like this, better to use Bar{} instead of Bar() to eliminate ambiguity.
If you want to declare a new substance with no parameter (knowing that the object have default parameters) don't write
type substance1();
but
type substance;
Certainly a corner case for this error, but I received it in a different situation, when attempting to overload the assignment operator=. It was a bit cryptic IMO (from g++ 8.1.1).
#include <cstdint>
enum DataType
{
DT_INT32,
DT_FLOAT
};
struct PrimitiveData
{
union MyData
{
int32_t i;
float f;
} data;
enum DataType dt;
template<typename T>
void operator=(T data)
{
switch(dt)
{
case DT_INT32:
{
data.i = data;
break;
}
case DT_FLOAT:
{
data.f = data;
break;
}
default:
{
break;
}
}
}
};
int main()
{
struct PrimitiveData pd;
pd.dt = DT_FLOAT;
pd = 3.4f;
return 0;
}
I received 2 "identical" errors
error: request for member ‘i’ [and 'f'] in ‘data’, which is of non-class type ‘float’
(The equivalent error for clang is:
error: member reference base type 'float' is not a structure or union)
for the lines data.i = data; and data.f = data;. Turns out the compiler was confusing local variable name 'data' and my member variable data. When I changed this to void operator=(T newData) and data.i = newData;, data.f = newData;, the error went away.
#MykolaGolubyev has already given wonderful explanation. I was looking for a solution to do somthing like this MyClass obj ( MyAnotherClass() ) but the compiler was interpreting it as a function declaration.
C++11 has braced-init-list. Using this we can do something like this
Temp t{String()};
However, this:
Temp t(String());
throws compilation error as it considers t as of type Temp(String (*)()).
#include <iostream>
class String {
public:
String(const char* str): ptr(str)
{
std::cout << "Constructor: " << str << std::endl;
}
String(void): ptr(nullptr)
{
std::cout << "Constructor" << std::endl;
}
virtual ~String(void)
{
std::cout << "Destructor" << std::endl;
}
private:
const char *ptr;
};
class Temp {
public:
Temp(String in): str(in)
{
std::cout << "Temp Constructor" << std::endl;
}
Temp(): str(String("hello"))
{
std::cout << "Temp Constructor: 2" << std::endl;
}
virtual ~Temp(void)
{
std::cout << "Temp Destructor" << std::endl;
}
virtual String get_str()
{
return str;
}
private:
String str;
};
int main(void)
{
Temp t{String()}; // Compiles Success!
// Temp t(String()); // Doesn't compile. Considers "t" as of type: Temp(String (*)())
t.get_str(); // dummy statement just to check if we are able to access the member
return 0;
}
I have a class with two constructors, one that takes no arguments and one that takes one argument.
Creating objects using the constructor that takes one argument works as expected. However, if I create objects using the constructor that takes no arguments, I get an error.
For instance, if I compile this code (using g++ 4.0.1)...
class Foo
{
public:
Foo() {};
Foo(int a) {};
void bar() {};
};
int main()
{
// this works...
Foo foo1(1);
foo1.bar();
// this does not...
Foo foo2();
foo2.bar();
return 0;
}
... I get the following error:
nonclass.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, const char**)’:
nonclass.cpp:17: error: request for member ‘bar’ in ‘foo2’, which is of non-class type ‘Foo ()()’
Why is this, and how do I make it work?
Foo foo2();
change to
Foo foo2;
You get the error because compiler thinks of
Foo foo2()
as of function declaration with name 'foo2' and the return type 'Foo'.
But in that case If we change to Foo foo2 , the compiler might show the error " call of overloaded ‘Foo()’ is ambiguous".
Just for the record..
It is actually not a solution to your code, but I had the same error message when incorrectly accessing the method of a class instance pointed to by myPointerToClass, e.g.
MyClass* myPointerToClass = new MyClass();
myPointerToClass.aMethodOfThatClass();
where
myPointerToClass->aMethodOfThatClass();
would obviously be correct.
Parenthesis is not required to instantiate a class object when you don't intend to use a parameterised constructor.
Just use Foo foo2;
It will work.
Adding to the knowledge base, I got the same error for
if(class_iter->num == *int_iter)
Even though the IDE gave me the correct members for class_iter. Obviously, the problem is that "anything"::iterator doesn't have a member called num so I need to dereference it. Which doesn't work like this:
if(*class_iter->num == *int_iter)
...apparently. I eventually solved it with this:
if((*class_iter)->num == *int_iter)
I hope this helps someone who runs across this question the way I did.
I was having a similar error, it seems that the compiler misunderstand the call to the constructor without arguments. I made it work by removing the parenthesis from the variable declaration, in your code something like this:
class Foo
{
public:
Foo() {};
Foo(int a) {};
void bar() {};
};
int main()
{
// this works...
Foo foo1(1);
foo1.bar();
// this does not...
Foo foo2; // Without "()"
foo2.bar();
return 0;
}
I ran into a case where I got that error message and had
Foo foo(Bar());
and was basically trying to pass in a temporary Bar object to the Foo constructor. Turns out the compiler was translating this to
Foo foo(Bar(*)());
that is, a function declaration whose name is foo that returns a Foo that takes in an argument -- a function pointer returning a Bar with 0 arguments. When passing in temporaries like this, better to use Bar{} instead of Bar() to eliminate ambiguity.
If you want to declare a new substance with no parameter (knowing that the object have default parameters) don't write
type substance1();
but
type substance;
Certainly a corner case for this error, but I received it in a different situation, when attempting to overload the assignment operator=. It was a bit cryptic IMO (from g++ 8.1.1).
#include <cstdint>
enum DataType
{
DT_INT32,
DT_FLOAT
};
struct PrimitiveData
{
union MyData
{
int32_t i;
float f;
} data;
enum DataType dt;
template<typename T>
void operator=(T data)
{
switch(dt)
{
case DT_INT32:
{
data.i = data;
break;
}
case DT_FLOAT:
{
data.f = data;
break;
}
default:
{
break;
}
}
}
};
int main()
{
struct PrimitiveData pd;
pd.dt = DT_FLOAT;
pd = 3.4f;
return 0;
}
I received 2 "identical" errors
error: request for member ‘i’ [and 'f'] in ‘data’, which is of non-class type ‘float’
(The equivalent error for clang is:
error: member reference base type 'float' is not a structure or union)
for the lines data.i = data; and data.f = data;. Turns out the compiler was confusing local variable name 'data' and my member variable data. When I changed this to void operator=(T newData) and data.i = newData;, data.f = newData;, the error went away.
#MykolaGolubyev has already given wonderful explanation. I was looking for a solution to do somthing like this MyClass obj ( MyAnotherClass() ) but the compiler was interpreting it as a function declaration.
C++11 has braced-init-list. Using this we can do something like this
Temp t{String()};
However, this:
Temp t(String());
throws compilation error as it considers t as of type Temp(String (*)()).
#include <iostream>
class String {
public:
String(const char* str): ptr(str)
{
std::cout << "Constructor: " << str << std::endl;
}
String(void): ptr(nullptr)
{
std::cout << "Constructor" << std::endl;
}
virtual ~String(void)
{
std::cout << "Destructor" << std::endl;
}
private:
const char *ptr;
};
class Temp {
public:
Temp(String in): str(in)
{
std::cout << "Temp Constructor" << std::endl;
}
Temp(): str(String("hello"))
{
std::cout << "Temp Constructor: 2" << std::endl;
}
virtual ~Temp(void)
{
std::cout << "Temp Destructor" << std::endl;
}
virtual String get_str()
{
return str;
}
private:
String str;
};
int main(void)
{
Temp t{String()}; // Compiles Success!
// Temp t(String()); // Doesn't compile. Considers "t" as of type: Temp(String (*)())
t.get_str(); // dummy statement just to check if we are able to access the member
return 0;
}
During refactoring of a rather large code-base my compiler came up with a great way to misunderstand me. This is a minimal example of what I am talking about:
#include <iostream>
class Foo {
public:
virtual int get() = 0;
template <typename T> int get(int i) { return 4 + i; }
};
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
virtual int get() { return 3; }
};
int main(int argv, char **argc) {
Bar b;
std::cout << b.get<char>(7) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Clang 3.6, gcc 4.7, gcc 4.8 and gcc 4.9 all tokenize the "b.get(7)" as a comparison operator between "b.get" and "char".
template-test.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
template-test.cpp:16:17: error: invalid use of non-static member function
std::cout << b.get<char>(7) << std::endl;
^
template-test.cpp:16:21: error: expected primary-expression before ‘char’
std::cout << b.get<char>(7) << std::endl;
^
(This is gcc 4.9, the others say something similar)
Is this supposed to work?
The work-around I found was to declare the templated "get" in both the base and the derived class.
The name get in the derived class hides the name get in the base class. Hence, the function template get() is not found when performing name lookup, and the compiler can only interpret those tokens the way you've seen.
You can use a using declaration in your Bar class to fix that:
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
using Foo::get;
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
virtual int get() { return 3; }
};
Here is a live demo on Coliru.
If you cannot modify the definition of Bar because it is not under your control, I guess you could qualify the call to get():
std::cout << f.Foo::get<char>(7) << std::endl; // get() template is found now.
See here for a live demo. Another option is to perform the call through a pointer or reference to Foo:
Bar b;
Foo& f = b;
std::cout << f.get<char>(7) << std::endl; // get() template is found now.
Once again, live example.
#include <iostream>
template<typename Impl>
struct renderer{
void get(){
static_cast<Impl*>(this)->get();
}
};
struct open_gl : public renderer<open_gl>{
void get(){
std::cout << "OpenGL" << std::endl;
}
};
struct direct_draw : public renderer<direct_draw>{
void get(){
std::cout << "DX" << std::endl;
}
};
template<typename T>
void print_renderer(renderer<T> r){
r.get();
}
int main() {
auto gl = open_gl();
auto dx = direct_draw();
print_renderer(gl);
print_renderer(dx);
}
Why can't I change the parameter of print_renderer to void
print_renderer(const renderer<T> &r)?
cannot convert 'this' pointer from 'const renderer<open_gl>' to 'renderer<open_gl> &'
`
Why do I get a runtime error when I rename the method get in open_gl from
get to get1? Shouldn't this trigger a compiler error? Error = Stack overflow
**Note I am using the latest MSVC
1) Because get is not a const member function : it cannot make the promise of not modify your (const) argument.
You could declare get as const, and it compiles fine :
void get() const { ... }
2) The base get method will be called, going into infinite recursion : Stack Overflow.
If you declare your function override (it needs to be virtual), the compiler will throw an error if it does not indeed override a base method :
void get1() override { ... } // Compiler error
void get() override { ... } // Ok
Note:
The title is "Static polymorphism in C++", but I think that you misunderstood what is static polymorphism : it does not (have to) make use of inheritance (as you did). Rather, the templates compile-time duck typing will statically "resolve" function calls for you.
That is, you don't need related types, you don't need the base renderer class at all, and you can simply do the following (in which case, renaming to get1 will cause a compiler error) :
#include <iostream>
struct open_gl {
void get(){
std::cout << "OpenGL" << std::endl;
}
};
struct direct_draw {
void get(){
std::cout << "DX" << std::endl;
}
};
template<typename T>
void print_renderer(T r){
r.get();
}
int main() {
auto gl = open_gl();
auto dx = direct_draw();
print_renderer(gl);
print_renderer(dx);
}
Live demo
Becuase get is not marked const.
Because the base class method is used (irrelevantly of cast), and it goes into infinite loop.
When I try to specialize a public member function template within the class definition/declaration:
#include <iostream>
class surfaceMesh
{
public:
// Uncomment for Version 0 and 1
class AREA_AVERAGE {};
class ANGLE_AVERAGE {};
template<class Average>
void vertexNormals() {}
// Uncomment: Version 0
//template<>
//void vertexNormals<AREA_AVERAGE> ()
//{
//std::cout << "AREA_AVERAGE" << std::endl;
//}
//template<>
//void vertexNormals<ANGLE_AVERAGE> ()
//{
//std::cout << "ANGLE_AVERAGE" << std::endl;
//}
};
// Uncommend for version 1
template<>
void surfaceMesh::vertexNormals<surfaceMesh::AREA_AVERAGE> ()
{
std::cout << "AREA_AVERAGE" << std::endl;
};
template<>
void surfaceMesh::vertexNormals<surfaceMesh::ANGLE_AVERAGE> ()
{
std::cout << "ANGLE_AVERAGE" << std::endl;
};
int main()
{
surfaceMesh m;
m.vertexNormals<surfaceMesh::AREA_AVERAGE>();
m.vertexNormals<surfaceMesh::ANGLE_AVERAGE>();
return 0;
}
For Version 0, the error is:
main.cpp:19: error: template-id ‘vertexNormals<mesh::AREA_AVERAGE>’ in declaration of primary template
main.cpp:24: error: explicit specialization in non-namespace scope ‘class mesh’
main.cpp:25: error: template-id ‘vertexNormals<mesh::ANGLE_AVERAGE>’ in declaration of primary template
main.cpp:25: error: ‘void mesh::vertexNormals()’ cannot be overloaded
main.cpp:19: error: with ‘void mesh::vertexNormals()’
Version 1 compiles and runs. Of course, usually I am separating the class declaration and definition, but I would really like to know why this happens.
Also, is this a good way to specialize an interface? The other option would be to overload the function vertexNormals to take an object of AREA_AVERAGE or ANGLE_AVERAGE, but this is just a type telling me which kind of function I will be using, it is not supposed to be instantiated, so using templates 'feels' like a right choice.
Why is it not allowed to specialize a member function template within a class?
Because that is the rule laid down by the C++ Standard.
As for what you want, a better approach is to use function overload rather than function specialization as:
class surfaceMesh
{
public:
// Uncomment for Version 0 and 1
class AREA_AVERAGE {};
class ANGLE_AVERAGE {};
template<class Average>
void vertexNormals()
{
//invoke the function overload
vertexNormals(static_cast<Average*>(0));
}
private:
//make the overloads private, so client will not call them!
void vertexNormals(AREA_AVERAGE *)
{
std::cout << "AREA_AVERAGE" << std::endl;
}
void vertexNormals(ANGLE_AVERAGE*)
{
std::cout << "ANGLE_AVERAGE " << std::endl;
}
};
The type of the expression static_cast<Average*>(0) helps the compiler to choose the correct overload.