Assigning to expression templates - c++

I have little c++ experience, but now I need to look at some code that uses expression templates a lot, so I am reading chapter 18 of the book << C++ Templates: The Complete Guide >> and working on the example provided in the book. If you happened to have the book, the example starts from pp 328, with all the contextual information.
My code works fine until I want to add the support for subvector indexing (pp 338), I could not get the assignment to work, g++ gives the following error:
error: binding ‘const value_type {aka const double}’ to reference of type ‘double&’ discards qualifiers
return v[vi[idx]];
I have no idea what's going on, am I assigning to a constant object? How do I make this work? Here is my code:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template<typename T>
class ET_Scalar {
private:
const T& s;
public:
ET_Scalar(const T& v) :
s(v) {}
T operator[](size_t) const
{
return s;
}
size_t size() const
{
return 0; // Zero means it's a scalar
}
};
template<typename T, typename V, typename VI>
class ET_SubVec {
private:
const V& v;
const VI& vi;
public:
ET_SubVec(const V& a, const VI& b) :
v(a), vi(b) {}
const T operator[] (size_t idx) const
{
return v[vi[idx]];
}
T& operator[] (size_t idx)
{
return v[vi[idx]];
}
size_t size() const
{
return vi.size();
}
};
// Using std::vector as storage
template<typename T, typename Rep = std::vector<T>>
class ET_Vector {
private:
Rep expr_rep;
public:
// Create vector with initial size
explicit ET_Vector(size_t s) :
expr_rep(s) {}
ET_Vector(const Rep& v) :
expr_rep(v) {}
ET_Vector& operator=(const ET_Vector& v)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < v.size(); i++)
expr_rep[i] = v[i];
return *this;
}
template<typename T2, typename Rep2>
ET_Vector& operator=(const ET_Vector<T2, Rep2>& v)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < v.size(); i++)
expr_rep[i] = v[i];
return *this;
}
size_t size() const
{
return expr_rep.size();
}
const T operator[](size_t idx) const
{
return expr_rep[idx];
}
T& operator[](size_t idx)
{
return expr_rep[idx];
}
template<typename T2, typename Rep2>
ET_Vector<T, ET_SubVec<T, Rep, Rep2>> operator[](const ET_Vector<T2, Rep2>& vi)
{
return ET_Vector<T, ET_SubVec<T, Rep, Rep2>>(ET_SubVec<T, Rep, Rep2>(expr_rep, vi.rep()));
}
template<typename T2, typename Rep2>
const ET_Vector<T, ET_SubVec<T, Rep, Rep2>> operator[](const ET_Vector<T2, Rep2>& vi) const
{
return ET_Vector<T, ET_SubVec<T, Rep, Rep2>>(ET_SubVec<T, Rep, Rep2>(expr_rep, vi.rep()));
}
// Return what the vector currently represents
const Rep& rep() const
{
return expr_rep;
}
Rep& rep()
{
return expr_rep;
}
};
template<typename T>
class ET_Traits {
public:
typedef const T& ExprRef;
};
template<typename T>
class ET_Traits<ET_Scalar<T>> {
public:
typedef ET_Scalar<T> ExprRef;
};
template<typename T, typename LHS, typename RHS>
class ET_Add {
private:
typename ET_Traits<LHS>::ExprRef lhs;
typename ET_Traits<RHS>::ExprRef rhs;
public:
ET_Add(const LHS& l, const RHS& r) :
lhs(l), rhs(r) {}
T operator[](size_t idx) const
{
return lhs[idx] + rhs[idx];
}
size_t size() const
{
return (lhs.size() != 0) ? lhs.size() : rhs.size();
}
};
template<typename T, typename LHS, typename RHS>
class ET_Mul {
private:
typename ET_Traits<LHS>::ExprRef lhs;
typename ET_Traits<RHS>::ExprRef rhs;
public:
ET_Mul(const LHS& l, const RHS& r) :
lhs(l), rhs(r) {}
T operator[](size_t idx) const
{
return lhs[idx] * rhs[idx];
}
size_t size() const
{
return (lhs.size() != 0) ? lhs.size() : rhs.size();
}
};
// Vector + Vector
template<typename T, typename LHS, typename RHS>
ET_Vector<T, ET_Add<T, LHS, RHS>>
operator+(const ET_Vector<T, LHS>& a, const ET_Vector<T, RHS>& b)
{
return ET_Vector<T, ET_Add<T, LHS, RHS>>(ET_Add<T, LHS, RHS>(a.rep(), b.rep()));
}
// Scalar + Vector
template<typename T, typename RHS>
ET_Vector<T, ET_Add<T, ET_Scalar<T>, RHS>>
operator+(const T& s, const ET_Vector<T, RHS>& b)
{
return ET_Vector<T, ET_Add<T, ET_Scalar<T>, RHS>>(ET_Add<T, ET_Scalar<T>, RHS>(ET_Scalar<T>(s), b.rep()));
}
// Vector .* Vector
template<typename T, typename LHS, typename RHS>
ET_Vector<T, ET_Mul<T, LHS, RHS>>
operator*(const ET_Vector<T, LHS>& a, const ET_Vector<T, RHS>& b)
{
return ET_Vector<T, ET_Mul<T, LHS, RHS>>(ET_Mul<T, LHS, RHS>(a.rep(), b.rep()));
}
//Scalar * Vector
template<typename T, typename RHS>
ET_Vector<T, ET_Mul<T, ET_Scalar<T>, RHS>>
operator*(const T& s, const ET_Vector<T, RHS>& b)
{
return ET_Vector<T, ET_Mul<T, ET_Scalar<T>, RHS>>(ET_Mul<T, ET_Scalar<T>, RHS>(ET_Scalar<T>(s), b.rep()));
}
template<typename T>
void print_vec(const T& e)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < e.size(); i++) {
std::cout << e[i] << ' ';
}
std::cout << '\n';
return;
}
int main()
{
size_t N = 16;
ET_Vector<double> x(N);
ET_Vector<double> y(N);
ET_Vector<double> z(N);
ET_Vector<int> idx(N / 2);
// Do not use auto z = [expr] here! Otherwise the type of z will still be a
// container, and evaluation won't happen until later. But the compiler
// will optimize necessary information away, causing errors.
z = (6.5 + x) + (-2.0 * (1.25 + y));
print_vec(z);
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++)
idx[i] = 2 * i;
z[idx] = -1.0 * z[idx];
print_vec(z);
return 0;
}
Sorry about its length, I've failed to create a minimal (not) working example.

Related

Use of common_type_t and enable_if for generic matrix class (via expression template)

I am writing a matrix library for generic types using expression templates.
The basic matrix class is a template class Matrix <typename Scalar, int RowSize, int ColumnSize>
which inherits from MatrixXpr< Matrix<Scalar, RowSize, ColumnSize> >
where MatrixXpr is the parent class for the expression templates "MatrixSum", "MatrixProduct" etc.
For example:
template <typename Mat, typename Rix>
class MatrixProduct : public MatrixXpr< MatrixProduct<Mat,Rix> >
{
private:
const Mat& A_;
const Rix& B_;
public:
using value_type= std::common_type_t<typename Mat::value_type, typename Rix::value_type>;
MatrixProduct(const Mat& A, const Rix& B) : A_(A), B_(B) {}
value_type operator()(int i, int j) const {
value_type out{ 0 };
for (int k = 0; k < A_.Columns(); ++k) out += A_(i, k) * B_(k, j);
return out;
}
};
The * operator is then defined outside
template <typename Mat, typename Rix>
MatrixProduct<Mat, Rix> inline const operator*(const MatrixXpr<Mat>& A, const MatrixXpr<Rix>& B)
{
return MatrixProduct<Mat, Rix>(A, B);
}
Now I wish to implement also a Scalar*Matrix class. But I fail to define the correct value_type:
template <typename Scalar, typename Mat>
class ScalarMatrixProduct : public MatrixXpr< ScalarMatrixProduct<Scalar, Mat> >
{
private:
const Scalar& A_;
const Mat& B_;
public:
using value_type = std::common_type_t<typename Mat::value_type, typename Scalar>;
ScalarMatrixProduct(const Scalar& A, const Mat& B) : A_(A), B_(B) {}
value_type operator()(int i, int j) const {
return A_ * B_(i, j);
}
};
template <typename Scalar, typename Mat>
typename std::enable_if < (!is_matrix<Scalar>::value),
ScalarMatrixProduct<Scalar, Mat > >::type const operator*(const Scalar& A, const MatrixXpr<Mat>& B)
{
return ScalarMatrixProduct<Scalar, Mat>(A, B);
}
On Mac and Linux I get an compilation error of this sort:
template argument 2 is invalid 102 | using value_type =
std::common_type_t<typename Mat::value_type, typename Scalar>;
Interestingly, it compiles on Windows.
Any hints for what's wrong would be helpful.
Thanks in advance.
Complete example:
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
#include <array>
#include <initializer_list>
///////////Expression Template Base Class for CRTP
template <class MatrixClass> struct MatrixXpr {
decltype(auto) operator()(int i, int j) const {
return static_cast<MatrixClass const&>(*this)(i, j);
}
operator MatrixClass& () {
return static_cast<MatrixClass&>(*this);
}
operator const MatrixClass& () const {
return static_cast<const MatrixClass&>(*this);
}
int Rows()
{
return static_cast<MatrixClass&>(*this).Rows();
}
int Columns()
{
return static_cast<MatrixClass&>(*this).Columns();
}
int Rows() const
{
return static_cast<const MatrixClass&>(*this).Rows();
}
int Columns() const
{
return static_cast<const MatrixClass&>(*this).Columns();
}
friend int Rows(const MatrixXpr& A)
{
return A.Rows();
}
friend int Columns(const MatrixXpr& A)
{
return A.Columns();
}
};
template <typename MatrixClass>
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const MatrixXpr<MatrixClass>& A)
{
for (int r = 0; r < Rows(A); ++r) {
os << '[';
for (int c = 0; c < Columns(A); ++c)
os << A(r, c) << (c + 1 < Columns(A) ? " " : "");
os << "]\n";
}
return os;
}
/////////// Matrix Product
template <typename Mat, typename Rix>
class MatrixProduct : public MatrixXpr< MatrixProduct<Mat, Rix> >
{
private:
const Mat& A_;
const Rix& B_;
public:
using value_type = std::common_type_t<typename Mat::value_type, typename Rix::value_type>;
MatrixProduct(const Mat& A, const Rix& B) : A_(A), B_(B)
{
std::cout << "MatrixMatrixProduct Constructor\n";
}
int Rows() const { return A_.Rows(); }
int Columns() const { return B_.Columns(); }
value_type operator()(int i, int j) const {
value_type out{ 0 };
for (int k = 0; k < A_.Columns(); ++k) out += A_(i, k) * B_(k, j);
return out;
}
};
/////////// Scalar Matrix Product
template <typename Scalar, typename Mat>
class ScalarMatrixProduct : public MatrixXpr< ScalarMatrixProduct<Scalar, Mat> >
{
private:
const Scalar& A_;
const Mat& B_;
public:
using value_type = std::common_type_t<typename Mat::value_type, typename Scalar>;
ScalarMatrixProduct(const Scalar& A, const Mat& B) : A_(A), B_(B) {
std::cout << "ScalarMatrixProduct Constructor\n";
}
int Rows() const { return B_.Rows(); }
int Columns() const { return B_.Columns(); }
value_type operator()(int i, int j) const {
return A_ * B_(i, j);
}
};
//The following two functions are Helpers for initializing an array.
//Source: https://stackoverflow.com/a/38934685/6176345
template<typename T, std::size_t N, std::size_t ...Ns>
std::array<T, N> make_array_impl(
std::initializer_list<T> list,
std::index_sequence<Ns...>)
{
return std::array<T, N>{ *(list.begin() + Ns) ... };
}
template<typename T, std::size_t N>
std::array<T, N> make_array(std::initializer_list<T> list) {
if (N > list.size())
throw std::out_of_range("Initializer list too small.");
return make_array_impl<T, N>(list, std::make_index_sequence<N>());
}
/////////// Matrix class
template <typename Scalar, int RowSize, int ColumnSize = RowSize>
class Matrix : public MatrixXpr< Matrix<Scalar, RowSize, ColumnSize> >
{
std::array<Scalar, RowSize* ColumnSize> data_;
public:
using value_type = Scalar;
const static int rows_ = RowSize;
const static int columns_ = ColumnSize;
int Rows() const { return rows_; }
int Columns() const { return columns_; }
Matrix() : data_{ Scalar(0) } {};
Matrix(const Matrix& other) = default;
Matrix(Matrix&& other) = default;
Matrix& operator=(const Matrix& other) = default;
Matrix& operator=(Matrix&& other) = default;
~Matrix() = default;
Matrix(std::initializer_list<Scalar> data) : data_(make_array<Scalar, RowSize* ColumnSize>(data)) {}
template <typename Source>
Matrix& operator=(const MatrixXpr<Source>& source)
{
for (int i = 0; i < rows_; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < columns_; ++j)
data_[MatrixIndex(i, j)] = source(i, j);
return *this;
}
template <typename Source>
Matrix(const MatrixXpr<Source>& source)
{
for (int i = 0; i < rows_; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < columns_; ++j)
data_[MatrixIndex(i, j)] = source(i, j);
}
Scalar& operator()(int i, int j) {
return data_[MatrixIndex(i, j)];
}
const Scalar& operator()(int i, int j) const {
return data_[MatrixIndex(i, j)];
}
private:
inline static int MatrixIndex(int i, int j)
{
return i * columns_ + j;
}
};
/////////// Multiplication operators
template <typename Mat, typename Rix>
MatrixProduct<Mat, Rix> inline const operator*(const MatrixXpr<Mat>& A, const MatrixXpr<Rix>& B)
{
std::cout << "Matrix Matrix Multiplication\n";
return MatrixProduct<Mat, Rix>(A, B);
}
template <typename Scalar, typename Mat>
typename std::enable_if_t<!std::is_base_of_v<MatrixXpr<Scalar>, Scalar>,
ScalarMatrixProduct<Scalar, Mat >> const operator*(const Scalar& A, const MatrixXpr<Mat>& B)
{
return ScalarMatrixProduct<Scalar, Mat>(A, B);
}
/////////// Failing example
int main()
{
Matrix<int, 2, 2> m = { 1,0,0,1 };
auto n = 3 * m;
std::cout << n;
std::cout << m * n;
//std::cout << n * m; // Error
return 0;
}
Edit:
The above code originally had two problems.
The first one is that my type checking failed to see which overload of the *operator was being used. The above implementation with std::is_base_of_v<MatrixXpr<Scalar>, Scalar> fixed it and is is working correctly.
I do not know why this old code did not work. Here is the old version:
template <typename T>
struct is_matrix : std::false_type {};
template <typename T>
struct is_matrix<const T> : is_matrix<T> {};
template <typename MatrixClass>
struct is_matrix<MatrixXpr<MatrixClass> > : std::true_type {};
template <typename Scalar, typename Mat>
typename std::enable_if < (!is_matrix<Scalar>::value),
ScalarMatrixProduct<Scalar, Mat > >::type const operator*(const Scalar& A, const MatrixXpr<Mat>& B)
{
std::cout << "Scalar Matrix Multiplication\n";
return ScalarMatrixProduct<Scalar, Mat>(A, B);
}

Operator overloading in matrix using expression templates

I have been trying to figure out expression templates since the last couple of days but haven't been able to get past this. I am building a matrix starting with the add operator. I am building using c++14.
My matrix.h looks like this:
template <typename T, std::size_t COL, std::size_t ROW>
class Matrix {
public:
using value_type = T;
Matrix() : values(COL * ROW) {}
static size_t cols() { return COL; }
static size_t rows() { return ROW; }
const T& operator()(size_t x, size_t y) const { return values[y * COL + x]; }
T& operator()(size_t x, size_t y) { return values[y * COL + x]; }
template <typename E>
Matrix<T, COL, ROW>& operator=(const E& expression) {
for (std::size_t y = 0; y != rows(); ++y) {
for (std::size_t x = 0; x != cols(); ++x) {
values[y * COL + x] = expression(x, y);
}
}
return *this;
}
private:
std::vector<T> values;
};
template <typename LHS, typename RHS>
class MatrixSum
{
public:
using value_type = typename LHS::value_type;
MatrixSum(const LHS& lhs, const RHS& rhs) : rhs(rhs), lhs(lhs) {}
value_type operator() (int x, int y) const {
return lhs(x, y) + rhs(x, y);
}
private:
const LHS& lhs;
const RHS& rhs;
};
template <typename LHS, typename RHS>
MatrixSum<LHS, RHS> operator+(const LHS& lhs, const LHS& rhs) {
return MatrixSum<LHS, RHS>(lhs, rhs);
}
Cpp file main function looks contains this:
Matrix<int,5,5>mx,my;
mx+my;
This shows the following error:
invalid operands to binary expression ('Matrix<int, 5, 5>' and 'Matrix<int, 5, 5>')
mx+my;
I have searched a lot online, but I clearly have missed something. The above code is taken from https://riptutorial.com/cplusplus/example/19992/a-basic-example-illustrating-expression-templates.
I would appreciate if some resources to understand expression templates can be shared.

c++ Force implicit conversion on pass as argument

I have problem with implicit conversions in C++.
I'm trying to create some Expression template for vector arithmetics (I know that same libraries already exists. I'm just learning C++ so I wanted to try something with templates).
I would like to create class Vector, that is able to compute like this:
simd::test::Vector<char, 5> a;
simd::test::Vector<short, 5> b;
auto ret = a + b + a + b;
, where on output would be Vector of shorts becouse short is bigger type than char.
Right now, I have class that is able to adds vectors of same data types. For different types I have to call explicit conversion:
//simd::test::Vector<short, 5>(a)
auto ret = simd::test::Vector<short, 5>(a) + b + simd::test::Vector<short, 5>(a) + b;
Is possible to implicit convert Vector before pass into function "operator+()"? Here is my code of Vector:
#pragma once
#include <type_traits>
namespace simd {
namespace test {
template<typename R, std::size_t Dim,
typename std::enable_if<std::is_arithmetic<R>::value>::type* = nullptr
>
class Vector_expression {
public:
static constexpr std::size_t size = Dim;
virtual const R operator[] (std::size_t index) const = 0;
virtual ~Vector_expression() = default;
};
template<typename T, std::size_t Dim>
class Vector final : public Vector_expression<T, Dim> {
private:
T data[Dim];
public:
Vector() = default;
template<typename R>
Vector(const Vector_expression<R, Dim> &obj) {
for(std::size_t index = 0; index < Dim; ++index) {
data[index] = obj[index];
}
}
template<typename R>
Vector(Vector_expression<R, Dim> &&obj) {
for(std::size_t index = 0; index < Dim; ++index) {
data[index] = obj[index];
}
}
template<typename R>
Vector<T, Dim> & operator=(const Vector_expression<R, Dim> &obj) {
for(std::size_t index = 0; index < Dim; ++index) {
data[index] = obj[index];
}
return (*this);
}
template<typename R>
Vector<T, Dim> & operator=(Vector_expression<R, Dim> && obj) {
for(std::size_t index = 0; index < Dim; ++index) {
data[index] = obj[index];
}
return (*this);
}
virtual const T operator[] (std::size_t index) const override {
return data[index];
}
T & operator[] (std::size_t index) {
return data[index];
}
virtual ~Vector() = default;
};
template<typename E1, typename E2, typename R, std::size_t Dim>
class Vector_sum final : public Vector_expression<R, Dim> {
private:
const E1 & _lhs;
const E2 & _rhs;
public:
Vector_sum() = delete;
Vector_sum(const E1 & lhs, const E2 & rhs) :
_lhs(lhs),
_rhs(rhs)
{}
virtual const R operator[] (std::size_t index) const override {
return _lhs[index] + _rhs[index];
}
virtual ~Vector_sum() = default;
};
template<typename R, std::size_t Dim>
Vector_sum<Vector_expression<R, Dim>, Vector_expression<R, Dim>, R, Dim> operator+ (const Vector_expression<R, Dim> & lhs, const Vector_expression<R, Dim> & rhs) {
return {lhs, rhs};
}
}
}
Just define an operator+ that allows different argument types. The one catch is determining the element type of the resulting sum. Probably the best option is to use whatever the result of adding two elements is. One way to write this type is:
decltype(std::declval<const R1>() + std::declval<const R2>())
Or if you know the types are built-in arithmetic types, that would be the same as
std::common_type_t<R1, R2>
Or using a trailing return type, we can take advantage of the function parameters to shorten the std::declval expressions:
template<typename R1, typename R2, std::size_t Dim>
auto operator+ (const Vector_expression<R1, Dim> & lhs,
const Vector_expression<R2, Dim> & rhs)
-> Vector_sum<Vector_expression<R1, Dim>, Vector_expression<R2, Dim>,
decltype(lhs[0] + rhs[0]), Dim>
{
return {lhs, rhs};
}
It could be done using templates and std::common_type, something like this:
template<typename T1, typename T2, size_t S>
simd::test::Vector<typename std::common_type<T1, T2>::type, S>
operator+(simd::test::Vector<T1, S> const& v1,
simd::test::Vector<T2, S> const& v2)
{
// TODO: Implementation...
}

C++ Template specialization redundancy reduction

I wanted to write my own Vector class template and also wanted to add some specializations, for example a 3D vector type where the components can be accessed through x/y/z.
The template and the specializations work fine so far, but the issue is, that the specialized templates require a lot of copy/pasting from the base template to work. I would like to reduce that.
This is what it looks like right now:
template<class T, unsigned int dim>
class Vector;
template<class T, unsigned int dim>
Vector<T, dim> add(Vector<T, dim> const& lhs, Vector<T, dim> const& rhs)
{
Vector<T, dim> tmp;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < dim; ++i)
{
tmp[i] = lhs[i] + rhs[i];
}
return tmp;
}
template<class T, unsigned int dim, class S>
Vector<T, dim> add(Vector<T, dim> const& lhs, S const& rhs)
{
Vector<T, dim> tmp;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < dim; ++i)
{
tmp[i] = lhs[i] + rhs;
}
return tmp;
}
template<class T, unsigned int dim>
Vector<T, dim> operator+(Vector<T, dim> const& lhs, Vector<T, dim> const& rhs)
{
return vectors::add(lhs, rhs);
}
template<class T, unsigned int dim, class S>
Vector<T, dim> operator+(Vector<T, dim> const& lhs, S const& rhs)
{
return vectors::add(lhs, rhs);
}
template<class T, unsigned int dim>
class Vector
{
//...
protected:
T values[dim] __attribute((aligned(16)));
public:
template<class R, unsigned int fdim>
friend Vector<R, fdim> operator+(Vector<R, fdim> const& lhs, Vector<R, fdim> const& rhs);
template<class R, unsigned int fdim, class S>
friend Vector<R, fdim> operator+(Vector<R, fdim> const& lhs, S const& rhs);
template<class R, unsigned int fdim, class S>
friend Vector<R, fdim> operator+(S const& lhs, Vector<R, fdim> const& rhs);
//...
//constructors, etc.
};
template<class T>
class Vector<T, 3>
{
//...
protected:
T values[3] __attribute((aligned(16)));
public:
T& x = values[0];
T& y = values[1];
T& z = values[2];
//lots of copy-pasta :(
template<class R, unsigned int fdim>
friend Vector<R, fdim> operator+(Vector<R, fdim> const& lhs, Vector<R, fdim> const& rhs);
template<class R, unsigned int fdim, class S>
friend Vector<R, fdim> operator+(Vector<R, fdim> const& lhs, S const& rhs);
template<class R, unsigned int fdim, class S>
friend Vector<R, fdim> operator+(S const& lhs, Vector<R, fdim> const& rhs);
//...
//constructors, etc.
};
Now I thought the easy solution would be to simply define Vector3D as a sub-class of the Vector template, like so:
template<class T>
class Vector3D: public Vector<T, 3>
{
//...
public:
T& x = values[0];
T& y = values[1];
T& z = values[2];
//no copy-pasta :)
//...
//constructors, etc.
};
That doesn't work at all, due to ambiguity:
ambiguous overload for ‘operator+’ (operand types are ‘const vec3f {aka const math::vectors::Vector3D<float>}’ and ‘math::vectors::vec3f {aka math::vectors::Vector3D<float>}’)
../main.cpp:84:16: note: candidates are:
In file included from ../main.cpp:10:0:
../include/vector.hpp:720:16: note: math::vectors::Vector<T, dim> math::vectors::operator+(const math::vectors::Vector<T, dim>&, const math::vectors::Vector<T, dim>&) [with T = float; unsigned int dim = 3u]
Vector<T, dim> operator+(Vector<T, dim> const& lhs, Vector<T, dim> const& rhs)
^
../include/vector.hpp:726:16: note: math::vectors::Vector<T, dim> math::vectors::operator+(const math::vectors::Vector<T, dim>&, const S&) [with T = float; unsigned int dim = 3u; S = math::vectors::Vector3D<float>]
Vector<T, dim> operator+(Vector<T, dim> const& lhs, S const& rhs)
^
../include/vector.hpp:732:16: note: math::vectors::Vector<T, dim> math::vectors::operator+(const S&, const math::vectors::Vector<T, dim>&) [with T = float; unsigned int dim = 3u; S = math::vectors::Vector3D<float>]
Vector<T, dim> operator+(S const& lhs, Vector<T, dim> const& rhs)
So it seems like the template substitution fails, because S can also be substituted with the new Vector3D class as well, while it's supposed to handle only scalars.
So I tried to get rid of that issue by writing a small wrapper class for scalars like so:
template<class T>
class ScalarType
{
public:
T value;
ScalarType() :
value(0)
{
}
ScalarType(T const& _v) :
value(_v)
{
}
ScalarType(ScalarType<T> const& rhs) :
value(rhs.value)
{
}
operator T&()
{
return value;
}
operator T() const
{
return value;
}
};
And replace all instances of S const& (l|r)hs with ScalarType<S> const& (l|r)hs.
That got the operators with Vectors on both sides to work again, but the operators that are supposed to handle Vector-Scalar operations fail still.
This time it's due to the fact, that the scalar value has to be explicitly of type ScalarType, since implicit conversions to that don't work with template substitution.
So, is there any way of getting this to work at all or do I have to stick with the copy-paste code?
Done here with partial template specialisation and CRTP.
maybe_has_z<Container, N> is a class which translates Container::z() into Container::operator[](2), but only if Container::size() >= 3
#include <array>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
//
// some boilerplate - note the different indecies
//
// define some concepts
template<class Container, std::size_t N, typename= void>
struct maybe_has_x{};
template<class Container, std::size_t N, typename = void>
struct maybe_has_y{};
template<class Container, std::size_t N, typename = void>
struct maybe_has_z{};
// specialise the concepts into (sometimes) concrete accessors
template<class Container, std::size_t N>
struct maybe_has_x<Container, N, std::enable_if_t<(N > 0)>>
{
auto& x() const { return static_cast<const Container&>(*this)[0]; }
auto& x() { return static_cast<Container&>(*this)[0]; }
};
template<class Container, std::size_t N>
struct maybe_has_y<Container, N, std::enable_if_t<(N > 1)>>
{
auto& y() const { return static_cast<const Container&>(*this)[1]; }
auto& y() { return static_cast<Container&>(*this)[1]; }
};
template<class Container, std::size_t N>
struct maybe_has_z<Container, N, std::enable_if_t<(N > 2)>>
{
auto& z() const { return static_cast<const Container&>(*this)[2]; }
auto& z() { return static_cast<Container&>(*this)[2]; }
};
// define our vector type
template<class T, std::size_t N>
struct Vector
: std::array<T, N>
, maybe_has_x<Vector<T, N>, N> // include the maybe_ concepts
, maybe_has_y<Vector<T, N>, N>
, maybe_has_z<Vector<T, N>, N>
{
private:
using inherited = std::array<T, N>;
public:
Vector() : inherited {} {};
Vector(std::initializer_list<T> il)
: inherited { }
{
std::copy_n(il.begin(), std::min(il.size(), this->size()), std::begin(*this));
}
Vector(const inherited& rhs) : inherited(rhs) {}
public:
using value_type = typename inherited::value_type;
// offer arithmetic unary functions in class (example +=)
// note that this allows us to add integers to a vector of doubles
template<class Other, std::enable_if_t<std::is_convertible<value_type, Other>::value> * = nullptr>
Vector& operator+=(const Vector<Other, N>&rhs) {
auto lfirst = std::begin(*this);
auto rfirst = std::begin(rhs);
auto lend = std::end(*this);
while (lfirst != lend) {
*lfirst += *rfirst;
++lfirst;
++rfirst;
}
return *this;
}
};
// offer binary arithmetic as free functions
template<class T, std::size_t N, class Other>
Vector<T, N> operator+(Vector<T, N> lhs, const Vector<Other, N>& rhs) {
lhs += rhs;
return lhs;
}
// offer some streaming capability
template<class T, std::size_t N>
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Vector<T, N>& rhs) {
auto sep = "";
os << '[';
for (auto& x : rhs) {
os << sep << x;
sep = ", ";
}
return os << ']';
}
// test
int main()
{
auto a = Vector<double, 3> { 2.1, 1.2, 3.3 };
auto b = a + a + Vector<int, 3> { 1, 1, 1 };
std::cout << a << std::endl;
std::cout << b << std::endl;
std::cout << a.x() << ", " << a.y() << ", " << a.z() << std::endl;
auto c = Vector<double, 2> { 4.4, 5.5 };
std::cout << c << std::endl;
std::cout << c.x() << std::endl;
std::cout << c.y() << std::endl;
// won't compile
// std::cout << c.z() << std::endl;
}
expected output:
[2.1, 1.2, 3.3]
[5.2, 3.4, 7.6]
2.1, 1.2, 3.3
[4.4, 5.5]
4.4
5.5

Expression template with CRTP as lvalue

I'm writing a library that uses expression templates with CRTP. The source files can be found here: https://github.com/mspraggs/pyQCD/tree/master/lib/include/base
The expression templates are based on the example given in the Wikipedia article on the subject. I list the code here in case the Wiki article changes in future:
#include <vector>
#include <cassert>
template <typename E>
// A CRTP base class for Vecs with a size and indexing:
class VecExpression {
public:
typedef std::vector<double> container_type;
typedef container_type::size_type size_type;
typedef container_type::value_type value_type;
typedef container_type::reference reference;
size_type size() const { return static_cast<E const&>(*this).size(); }
value_type operator[](size_type i) const { return static_cast<E const&>(*this)[i]; }
operator E&() { return static_cast< E&>(*this); }
operator E const&() const { return static_cast<const E&>(*this); }
};
// The actual Vec class:
class Vec : public VecExpression<Vec> {
container_type _data;
public:
reference operator[](size_type i) { return _data[i]; }
value_type operator[](size_type i) const { return _data[i]; }
size_type size() const { return _data.size(); }
Vec(size_type n) : _data(n) {} // Construct a given size:
// Construct from any VecExpression:
template <typename E>
Vec(VecExpression<E> const& vec) {
E const& v = vec;
_data.resize(v.size());
for (size_type i = 0; i != v.size(); ++i) {
_data[i] = v[i];
}
}
};
template <typename E1, typename E2>
class VecDifference : public VecExpression<VecDifference<E1, E2> > {
E1 const& _u;
E2 const& _v;
public:
typedef Vec::size_type size_type;
typedef Vec::value_type value_type;
VecDifference(VecExpression<E1> const& u, VecExpression<E2> const& v) : _u(u), _v(v) {
assert(u.size() == v.size());
}
size_type size() const { return _v.size(); }
value_type operator[](Vec::size_type i) const { return _u[i] - _v[i]; }
};
template <typename E>
class VecScaled : public VecExpression<VecScaled<E> > {
double _alpha;
E const& _v;
public:
VecScaled(double alpha, VecExpression<E> const& v) : _alpha(alpha), _v(v) {}
Vec::size_type size() const { return _v.size(); }
Vec::value_type operator[](Vec::size_type i) const { return _alpha * _v[i]; }
};
// Now we can overload operators:
template <typename E1, typename E2>
VecDifference<E1,E2> const
operator-(VecExpression<E1> const& u, VecExpression<E2> const& v) {
return VecDifference<E1,E2>(u,v);
}
template <typename E>
VecScaled<E> const
operator*(double alpha, VecExpression<E> const& v) {
return VecScaled<E>(alpha,v);
}
What I want to do is add another expression template that allows assignment to part of the original template object (the Vec class in the code above, and the LatticeBase class in the code I've linked to). Possible usage:
Vec myvector(10);
Vec another_vector(5);
myvector.head(5) = another_vector; // Assign first 5 elements on myvector
myvector.head(2) = another_vector.head(2); // EDIT
So I'd create a new function Vec::head that would a return an expression template for a portion of the Vec object. I don't know how this would fit into the framework I currently have. In particular I have the following questions/comments:
I've seen examples of what I want to achieve in expression templates that don't use CRTP. What do I gain by using CRTP in this case? Is there any point? Should I ditch it and follow the other examples I've found?
In the current framework, the assignment to the _data member in the Vec class is handled by a copy constructor in the Vec class. This won't work if I want to use the expression template returned by Vec::head, since the assignment happens within the class that holds the data, not the expression template.
I've tried creating an assignment operator within the new expression template, but that won't work with the code above as all the expression template members are const references, and so the assignment operator is deleted at compile time. Can I just switch the members to being values instead of references? Will this impact on performance if additional storage is needed? Will this even work (if I change a stored copy of the expression rather than the expression itself)?
Overall I'm confused about how to go about adding an expression template that can be used as an lvalue in the code above. Any guidance on this would be greatly appreciated.
Try this:
#include <vector>
#include <cassert>
template <typename E>
// A CRTP base class for Vecs with a size and indexing:
class VecExpression {
public:
typedef std::vector<double> container_type;
typedef container_type::size_type size_type;
typedef container_type::value_type value_type;
typedef container_type::reference reference;
size_type size() const { return static_cast<E const&>(*this).size(); }
value_type operator[](size_type i) const { return static_cast<E const&>(*this)[i]; }
operator E&() { return static_cast<E&>(*this); }
operator E const&() const { return static_cast<const E&>(*this); }
};
class VecHead;
// The actual Vec class:
class Vec : public VecExpression<Vec> {
container_type _data;
public:
reference operator[](size_type i) { return _data[i]; }
value_type operator[](size_type i) const { return _data[i]; }
size_type size() const { return _data.size(); }
Vec(size_type n) : _data(n) {} // Construct a given size:
// Construct from any VecExpression:
template <typename E>
Vec(VecExpression<E> const& vec) {
E const& v = vec;
_data.resize(v.size());
for (size_type i = 0; i != v.size(); ++i) {
_data[i] = v[i];
}
}
VecHead head(size_type s);
};
class VecHead : public VecExpression< VecHead >
{
Vec::size_type _s;
Vec& _e;
public:
typedef Vec::size_type size_type;
typedef Vec::value_type value_type;
VecHead(std::size_t s, Vec& e)
: _s(s)
, _e(e)
{
assert(_e.size() >= _s);
}
size_type size() const { return _s; }
value_type operator[](Vec::size_type i) const { assert(i < _s); return _e[i]; }
VecHead& operator = (const VecHead& rhs)
{
return operator=(static_cast<const VecExpression<VecHead>&>(rhs));
}
template <typename E>
VecHead& operator = (const VecExpression<E>& rhs)
{
assert(rhs.size() >= _s);
for (size_type i = 0; i < _s && i < rhs.size(); ++i)
_e[i] = rhs[i];
return *this;
}
};
VecHead Vec::head(size_type s)
{
VecHead aHead(s, *this);
return aHead;
}
template <typename E1, typename E2>
class VecDifference : public VecExpression<VecDifference<E1, E2> > {
E1 const& _u;
E2 const& _v;
public:
typedef Vec::size_type size_type;
typedef Vec::value_type value_type;
VecDifference(VecExpression<E1> const& u, VecExpression<E2> const& v) : _u(u), _v(v) {
assert(u.size() == v.size());
}
size_type size() const { return _v.size(); }
value_type operator[](Vec::size_type i) const { return _u[i] - _v[i]; }
};
template <typename E>
class VecScaled : public VecExpression<VecScaled<E> > {
double _alpha;
E const& _v;
public:
VecScaled(double alpha, VecExpression<E> const& v) : _alpha(alpha), _v(v) {}
Vec::size_type size() const { return _v.size(); }
Vec::value_type operator[](Vec::size_type i) const { return _alpha * _v[i]; }
};
// Now we can overload operators:
template <typename E1, typename E2>
VecDifference<E1, E2> const
operator-(VecExpression<E1> const& u, VecExpression<E2> const& v) {
return VecDifference<E1, E2>(u, v);
}
template <typename E>
VecScaled<E> const
operator*(double alpha, VecExpression<E> const& v) {
return VecScaled<E>(alpha, v);
}
int main()
{
Vec myvector(10);
Vec another_vector(5);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
another_vector[i] = i;
myvector.head(5) = another_vector; // Assign first 5 elements on myvector
assert(myvector.head(5).size() == 5);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
assert(myvector[i] == (i < 5 ? static_cast<double>(i) : 0.));
}
//! Added test due to comment vec1.head(2) = vec2.head(2) doesn't work.
Vec vec1(10), vec2(10);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
vec2[i] = 2 * (vec1[i] = i);
vec1.head(2) = vec2.head(2);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
if (i < 2)
{
assert(vec1[i] == vec2[i]);
}
else
{
assert(vec1[i] != vec2[i]);
}
}
return 0;
}