I've written a template code that takes a functor as an argument and after some processing, executes it. Although someone else might pass that function a lambda, a function pointer or even an std::function but it is meant primarily for lambda(not that I ban other formats). I want to ask how should I take that lambda - by value? by reference? or something else.
Example code -
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
using namespace std;
template<typename Functor>
void f(Functor functor)
{
functor();
}
void g()
{
cout << "Calling from Function\n";
}
int main()
{
int n = 5;
f([](){cout << "Calling from Temp Lambda\n";});
f([&](){cout << "Calling from Capturing Temp Lambda\n"; ++n;});
auto l = [](){cout << "Calling from stored Lambda\n";};
f(l);
std::function<void()> funcSTD = []() { cout << "Calling from std::Function\n"; };
f(funcSTD);
f(g);
}
In above code, I've a choice of making it either of these -
template<typename Functor>
void f(Functor functor)
template<typename Functor>
void f(Functor &functor)
template<typename Functor>
void f(Functor &&functor)
What would be the better way and why? Are there any limitations to any of these?
As a possible drawback, note that passing by copy could not work if the lambda isn't copyable. If you can get away with it, passing by copy is just fine.
As an example:
#include<memory>
#include<utility>
template<typename F>
void g(F &&f) {
std::forward<F>(f)();
}
template<typename F>
void h(F f) {
f();
}
int main() {
auto lambda = [foo=std::make_unique<int>()](){};
g(lambda);
//h(lambda);
}
In the snippet above, lambda isn't copyable because of foo. Its copy constructor is deleted as a consequence of the fact that the copy constructor of a std::unique_ptr is deleted.
On the other side, F &&f accepts both lvalue and rvalue references being it a forwarding reference, as well as const references.
In other terms, if you want to reuse the same lambda as an argument more than once, you cannot if your functions get your object by copy and you must move it for it's not copyable (well, actually you can, it's a matter of wrapping it in a lambda that captures the outer one by reference).
As lambda expressions can have their own fields (like classes), copying / using reference can cause different results. Here's simple example:
template<class func_t>
size_t call_copy(func_t func) {
return func(1);
}
template<class func_t>
size_t call_ref(func_t& func) {
return func(1);
}
int main() {
auto lambda = [a = size_t{0u}] (int val) mutable {
return (a += val);
};
lambda(5);
// call_ref(lambda); – uncomment to change result from 5 to 6
call_copy(lambda);
std::cout << lambda(0) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Btw if you want to judge it by performance there's actually no difference, lambdas are very small and easy to copy.
Also – if you want to pass lambda as parameter (not a variable that contains it) you should use forwarding reference so it could work.
Related
Thing simple enough, I want to forward the call of a member function, along with its arguments, as described in the following snippet.
Please note that this is not a duplicate of this question, nor this one.
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
template<class Function, class ... Args>
auto forward_args(Function&& f, Args&& ... args)
{
return f(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
int f(int i) { return i; }
struct A {
int get(int i) const { return i; }
};
int main()
{
std::cout << forward_args(f, 2) << std::endl; //ok
A a;
//std::cout << forward_args(&A::get, a, 2) << std::endl; //ko
static auto wrong_wrapper = &A::get;
//std::cout << forward_args(wrong_wrapper, a, 2) << std::endl; //ko again
static std::function<int (const A&, int)> wrapper = &A::get;
std::cout << forward_args(wrapper, a, 2) << std::endl;
}
The commented lines in the main function don't compile (g++ 10.2.0 -- error: must use ‘.*’ or ‘->*’ to call pointer-to-member function in ‘f (...)’, e.g. ‘(... ->* f) (...)’)
I don't quite understand what the compiler is trying to tell me, considering the last cll with the std::function wrapper does work. And, beside fixing the code, I'd also like to know why it doesn't work.
Calling a member function through pointer-to-member still requires this pointer, as in usual (direct) invocations. Simply put, you could succeeded calling A::get() like
static auto wrong_wrapper = &A::get;
(a.*wrong_wrapper)(2);
but what you got after forward_args was instantiated is
A::get(a, 2);
which is not the correct syntax in its nature.
Solution
As it has been already said in the comments section, if you are allowed to use C++17, employ std::invoke. If you aren't, you can work it around using std::reference_wrapper, which accepts any callable type.
template<class Function, class ... Args>
auto forward_args(Function f, Args&& ... args)
{
return std::ref(f)(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
I don't forward f here because std::reference_wrapper requires that the object passed is not an rval.
UPD:
Don't forget to specify the trailing return type of forward_args if you use C++11
template<class Function, class ... Args>
auto forward_args(Function f, Args&& ... args) -> decltype(std::ref(f)(std::forward<Args>(args)...))
{
return std::ref(f)(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
std::function works because it uses std::invoke which handles calling pointer to member function.
As the solution you could write:
template<class Function, class ... Args>
auto forward_args(Function&& f, Args&& ... args) {
return std::invoke(std::forward<Function>(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
Syntax for calling member function for an object are:
obj.memberFunction();
obj->memberFunction();
or if you have a pointer to member function:
using Ptr = int (A::*)(int) const;
Ptr p = &A::get;
A a;
(a.*p)(1); // [1]
(obj.*memberFuncPtr)(args...);
the line [1] is valid syntax for calling member function pointed by a pointer. In your case you try A::get(a,2) which is just not valid and cannot work.
Alright, first thing, I still don't understand why forward_args(&A::get, a, 2) doesn't work. Part of the answer was "you need this", but I actually provide it with the second parameter, right ? How is that different from the std::function wrapper ?
On the other hand, while the workarounds proposed in above answer work on the snippet, I actually simplified my original problem too much. I actually need to launch tasks asynchronously, in the following code
thread safety has been removed
yeah, I want to pack all calls in a single data structure, namely tasks, which is wy I start building up wrappers
I don't understand how I can use the proposed solutions to the code below.
#include <iostream>
#include <future>
#include <functional>
#include <queue>
std::queue<std::function<void()>> tasks;
template<class Function, class ... Args>
auto enqueue(Function&& f, Args&& ... args) -> std::future<decltype(f(args...))>
{
std::function<decltype(f(args...))()> func = std::bind(std::forward<Function>(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...);
auto task_ptr = std::make_shared<std::packaged_task<decltype(f(args...))()>>(func);
std::function<void()> wrapper = [task_ptr]() //wrapper to match types of 'tasks'... ugly
{
(*task_ptr)();
};
tasks.push(wrapper);
return task_ptr->get_future();
}
void indep() {}
struct A {
int get(int i) const { return i; }
};
int main()
{
enqueue(indep);
A a;
//enqueue(&A::get, a, 2); //wrong
static auto wrapper_wrong = &A::get;
//enqueue(wrapper_wrong, a, 2); //wrong again
static std::function<int(const A&,int)> wrapper = &A::get;
enqueue(wrapper, a, 2); //ok
static auto autoptr = std::mem_fn(&A::get);
enqueue(autoptr, a, 2); //ok again
}
I am quite new to C++ and I am currently trying to learn how to utilize a template for a lambda function.
The lambda can be seen in the main function, and it simply makes a boolean check.
The implementation below works, but I have to explicitly state the types of the lambda in the testing function, as seen in the input parameter.
void testing(std::function<bool(const int& x)> predicate){
auto a = predicate(2);
std::cout << a << "\n";
}
int main() {
int ax = 2;
testing([&ax](const int& x) { return x == ax;});
}
I wish for an implementation where I can utilize templates as seen below, but I can not get anything to work.
template <typename T>
void testing(std::function<bool(const T& x)> predicate){
auto a = predicate(2);
std::cout << a << "\n";
}
Is there a general way to utilize a template for lambdas?
Don't wrap the template parameter in std::function.
The best way to pass a lambda to a function is to just have it as an unconstrained template parameter:
template<class F>
void testing(F predicate) {
auto a = predicate(2);
std::cout << a << '\n';
}
int main() {
int ax = 2;
testing([ax](int x) { return x == ax; });
}
Benefits over std::function.
std::function allocates space on the heap to store the functor
std::function has an overhead similar to a virtual function call
std::function can't be inlined by the compiler, but it's trivial to inline a lambda that's passed directly
I have started building the permission management library,
the basic idea is that you have some sort of configuration read from a file and based on that you can execute a functional object which will be wrapping "allow" and "restrict" functions.
The code so far is divided into few parts
I have a permission manager which says if given "std::string" is able to be executed or not:
class PermissionManager {
public:
virtual bool canAccess(std::string resource) {return true;};
};
Next, I have the actual wrapper on the function:
template <typename FuncT>
class PermissionFunction {
private:
FuncT m_restrict;
FuncT m_allow;
PermissionManager *m_pManager;
std::string m_resource;
public:
PermissionFunction(const PermissionFunction&) = delete;
PermissionFunction& operator=(const PermissionFunction&) = delete;
PermissionFunction(FuncT r, FuncT a, PermissionManager *man, std::string res)
: m_restrict(r), m_allow(a), m_pManager(man), m_resource(res){
}
template<typename ...ARG>
typename std::result_of<FuncT(ARG&&...)>::type operator()(ARG&&... args){
if(m_pManager->canAccess(m_resource)){
return m_allow(std::forward<ARG>(args)...);
} else {
return m_restrict(std::forward<ARG>(args)...);
}
}
};
So, the usage is something like:
PermissionManager tpm{};
std::function<void(int)> testRestrict = [](int a){std::cout << "Restrict" << std::endl;};
std::function<void(int)> testAllow = [](int a){std::cout << "Allow" << std::endl;};
PermissionFunction<decltype(testRestrict)> testPerm(testRestrict, testAllow, &tpm, "hi");
for(int i = 0; i <10; i++){
testPerm(i);
}
It works really nice for the non member std::functions, however when I want to define it with a member function it gets very messy:
class test {
public:
void testato(int i){
std::cout << i << std::endl;
}
PermissionManager perm{};
PermissionFunction<std::function<void(int)>>
permf{
std::bind(&test::testato, this, std::placeholders::_1),
std::bind(&test::testato, this, std::placeholders::_1),
&perm, "hi"};
};
I am wondering if there is any way to shorten up the usage for the member variable types, I was thinking about using the template for that as well but I am not sure how to use std bind with veriadic template parameters and it has to work for any function type.
The goal would be to have the function declaration similar to the one with the std::functions in the example given, so that I can define the member object in this maner:
some_template<decltype(member_f)>
wrapper_member{member_f, member_f, &tpm, "resource"}
Where member_f is an actual member function of a class. Ideally the type would be deduced but I think it would also be acceptable to repeat it in such manner:
some_template<return_t(args_t)>
wrapper_member{member_f, member_f, &tpm, "resource"}
C++20 introduces std::bind_front which binds arguments only to the leading parameters, and so doesn't require the use of placeholder objects. It could be used to make your code more concise.
PermissionFunction<std::function<void(int)>> permf{
std::bind_front(&test::testato, this),
std::bind_front(&test::testato, this),
&perm, "hi"};
A possible C++17 implementation:
#include <tuple>
#include <utility>
template <typename F, typename... Xs>
auto bind_front(F&& f, Xs&&... xs)
{
return [
f = std::forward<F>(f),
xs = std::make_tuple(std::forward<Xs>(xs)...)](auto&&... ys) -> decltype(auto)
{
return std::apply(
f,
std::tuple_cat(xs, std::forward_as_tuple(std::forward<decltype(ys)>(ys)...)));
};
}
Suppose you have the following pair of functions:
void f(const int&) {
// Do something, making a copy of the argument.
}
void f(int&&) {
// Do the same thing, but moving the argument.
}
They are fairly redundant—the only difference between the functions being whether they copy or move their argument. Of course, we can do better by re-writing this as a single template function:
template<typename T>
void g(T&&) {
// Do something, possibly using std::forward to copy or move the argument.
}
This works, and is a commonly used idiom in practice. But the template might be instantiated into three functions, up from our two above. We can verify this occurs with the following piece of code:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T> constexpr char *type = nullptr;
template<> constexpr const char *type<int&> = "int&";
template<> constexpr const char *type<const int&> = "const int&";
template<> constexpr const char *type<int> = "int";
template<typename T>
void g(T&&) {
std::cout << reinterpret_cast<void*>(&g<T>)
<< " = &g<" << type<T> << ">" << std::endl;
}
int main() {
int i = 0;
const int& cr = 0;
g(i);
g(cr);
g(0);
return 0;
}
/*
Prints:
0x100f45080 = &g<int&>
0x100f45100 = &g<const int&>
0x100f45180 = &g<int>
*/
This has added a third function for the case when T = int&, which we didn't have when we were using our non-templated function f above. In this case, we don't actually need this non-const l-value reference version of the function—given f was sufficient for our original needs—and this increases the size of our code, especially if we have many template functions written this way that call each other.
Is there a way to write our function g above so that the compiler will automatically deduce T = const int& when g(i) is called in our example code? I.e., a way where we don't have to manually write g<const int&>(i) yet still get the desired behavior.
It is a subjective point-of-view to say "forward references" ("universal references") are better than dedicated overloads. There are certainly many cases where this is true, but if you want to have full control they won't do all the jobs.
You could explicitly make sure users do not pass non-const lvalue references, by adding
static_assert(!std::is_lvalue_reference<T>::value || std::is_const<typename std::remove_reference<T>::type>::value, "only call g with const argument");
inside g, but this is not in all cases a very good solution.
Or you do what is done for vector::push_back(...) and provide explicit overloads -- but this was your starting point, see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/push_back.
The 'correct' answer just depends on your requirements.
Edit:
the suggestion of #Sjoerd would look something like:
template <typename T>
class aBitComplicated {
public:
void func(T&& v) { internal_func(std::forward<T>(v)); }
void func(const T& v) { internal_func(v); }
private:
template <typename U>
void internal_func(U&& v) { /* your universal code*/ }
};
There also a bit more sophisticated/complicated version of this, but this here should be the most simple version to achieve what you asked for.
The following template definition
template <typename Func, typename ReturnType, typename... Arguments>
class Command
{
public:
Command(Func f) : m_func(f) { }
ReturnType operator()(Arguments... funcArgs) { return m_func(funcArgs...); }
private:
Func m_func;
};
gives an error message with gcc 4.7.3 (error: field 'Command::m_func' invalidly declared function type) when instantiated with the following test code:
void testFunction(int i, double d)
{
std::cout << "TestFunctor::operator()(" << i << ", " << d << ") called." << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
void (&fRef)(int, double) = TestFunction;
Command<void(int, double), void, int, double> testCommand(fRef);
}
The error message also occurs if I pass TestFunction without the address-of operator into the testCommand constructor, but disappears if I pass either an explicitly named function pointer or use the address-of operator to pass the parameter. I'm under the impression that this code should work given Chapter 5 of Modern C++ Design.
What is the reasoning behind not being able to store a reference to a function, but function pointers work fine? Are there any workarounds that would allow this to compile without losing support for being able to pass functors as arguments to Command's constructor as well?
Changing one line could fix it:
Command<void(*)(int, double), void, int, double> testCommand(fRef);
The difference is, you're passing a function pointer now, instead of a function type. (Functions aren't copyable, but pointers are).
The reference fRef decays to a function pointer when you pass it.
I wouldn't suggest using std::function if performance mattered.
See it live on Coliru
Note that with a little rewriting, you can make it all work much nicer:
int main()
{
auto command = make_command(testFunction);
command(1, 3.14);
}
To do this, I'd suggest changing the Command template to be:
template <typename Func>
class Command
{
Func m_func;
public:
Command(Func f) : m_func(f) { }
template <typename... A> auto operator()(A... args) const
-> decltype(m_func(args...))
{ return m_func(args...); }
};
And now you can have type-deduction on the Func template parameter by having a factory function:
template <typename Func> Command<Func> make_command(Func f)
{
return Command<Func>(f);
}
See this approach live on Coliru too. Of course, the output it the same:
TestFunctor::operator()(1, 3.14) called.
C++11 offers an std::function template. You don't have to mess with function pointers.
You can pass those by reference, copy them, move them and they can even be used to store lambdas:
std::function<void()> func = []() { std::cout << "Hi" << std::endl; };