My real example is quite big, so I will use a simplified one. Suppose I have a data-type for a rectangle:
struct Rectangle {
int width;
int height;
int computeArea() {
return width * height;
}
}
And another type that consumes that type, for example:
struct TwoRectangles {
Rectangle a;
Rectangle b;
int computeArea() {
// Ignore case where they overlap for the sake of argument!
return a.computeArea() + b.computeArea();
}
};
Now, I don't want to put ownership constraints on users of TwoRectangles, so I would like to make it a template:
template<typename T>
struct TwoRectangles {
T a;
T b;
int computeArea() {
// Ignore case where they overlap for the sake of argument!
return a.computeArea() + b.computeArea();
}
};
Usages:
TwoRectangles<Rectangle> x;
TwoRectangles<Rectangle*> y;
TwoRectangles<std::shared_ptr<Rectangle>> z;
// etc...
The problem is that if the caller wants to use pointers, the body of the function should be different:
template<typename T>
struct TwoRectangles {
T a;
T b;
int computeArea() {
assert(a && b);
return a->computeArea() + b->computeArea();
}
};
What is the best way of unifying my templated function so that the maxiumum amount of code is reused for pointers, values and smart pointers?
One way of doing this, encapsulating everything within TwoRectangles, would be something like:
template<typename T>
struct TwoRectangles {
T a;
T b;
int computeArea() {
return areaOf(a) + areaOf(b);
}
private:
template <class U>
auto areaOf(U& v) -> decltype(v->computeArea()) {
return v->computeArea();
}
template <class U>
auto areaOf(U& v) -> decltype(v.computeArea()) {
return v.computeArea();
}
};
It's unlikely you'll have a type for which both of those expressions are valid. But you can always add additional disambiguation with a second argument to areaOf().
Another way, would be to take advantage of the fact that there already is a way in the standard library of invoking a function on whatever: std::invoke(). You just need to know the underlying type:
template <class T, class = void>
struct element_type {
using type = T;
};
template <class T>
struct element_type<T, void_t<typename std::pointer_traits<T>::element_type>> {
using type = typename std::pointer_traits<T>::element_type;
};
template <class T>
using element_type_t = typename element_type<T>::type;
and
template<typename T>
struct TwoRectangles {
T a;
T b;
int computeArea() {
using U = element_type_t<T>;
return std::invoke(&U::computeArea, a) +
std::invoke(&U::computeArea, b);
}
};
I actually had a similar problem some time ago, eventually i opted not to do it for now (because it's a big change), but it spawned a solution that seems to be correct.
I thought about making a helper function to access underlying value if there is any indirection. In code it would look like this, also with an example similar to yours.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <memory>
namespace detail
{
//for some reason the call for int* is ambiguous in newer standard (C++14?) when the function takes no parameters. That's a dirty workaround but it works...
template <class T, class SFINAE = decltype(*std::declval<T>())>
constexpr bool is_indirection(bool)
{
return true;
}
template <class T>
constexpr bool is_indirection(...)
{
return false;
}
}
template <class T>
constexpr bool is_indirection()
{
return detail::is_indirection<T>(true);
}
template <class T, bool ind = is_indirection<T>()>
struct underlying_type
{
using type = T;
};
template <class T>
struct underlying_type<T, true>
{
using type = typename std::remove_reference<decltype(*(std::declval<T>()))>::type;
};
template <class T>
typename std::enable_if<is_indirection<T>(), typename std::add_lvalue_reference<typename underlying_type<T>::type>::type>::type underlying_value(T&& val)
{
return *std::forward<T>(val);
}
template <class T>
typename std::enable_if<!is_indirection<T>(), T&>::type underlying_value(T& val)
{
return val;
}
template <class T>
typename std::enable_if<!is_indirection<T>(), const T&>::type underlying_value(const T& val)
{
return val;
}
template <class T>
class Storage
{
public:
T val;
void print()
{
std::cout << underlying_value(val) << '\n';
}
};
template <class T>
class StringStorage
{
public:
T str;
void printSize()
{
std::cout << underlying_value(str).size() << '\n';
}
};
int main()
{
int* a = new int(213);
std::string str = "some string";
std::shared_ptr<std::string> strPtr = std::make_shared<std::string>(str);
Storage<int> sVal{ 1 };
Storage<int*> sPtr{ a };
Storage<std::string> sStrVal{ str };
Storage<std::shared_ptr<std::string>> sStrPtr{ strPtr };
StringStorage<std::string> ssStrVal{ str };
StringStorage<const std::shared_ptr<std::string>> ssStrPtr{ strPtr };
sVal.print();
sPtr.print();
sStrVal.print();
sStrPtr.print();
ssStrVal.printSize();
ssStrPtr.printSize();
std::cout << is_indirection<int*>() << '\n';
std::cout << is_indirection<int>() << '\n';
std::cout << is_indirection<std::shared_ptr<int>>() << '\n';
std::cout << is_indirection<std::string>() << '\n';
std::cout << is_indirection<std::unique_ptr<std::string>>() << '\n';
}
Related
I'm trying to use template specialization to return different types based on the value of the template variable.
I've moved from trying to branch at runtime rather than compile time using typeof(), unspecialized templates and using std::enable_if_t<>. I think this may stem from a lack of understanding about how the template functions are resolving.
class Test
{
public:
template <typename T>
T request()
{
T ret = getVal<T>();
return ret;
}
private:
float foo = 2.f;
int bar = 1;
template <typename T>
typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<T, float>::value, bool>::type
getVal() { return foo; }
template <typename T>
typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<T, int>::value, bool>::type
getVal() { return bar; }
template<typename T>
T getVal()
{
std::cout << "T is type " << typeid(T).name() << std::endl;
throw std::bad_typeid();
}
};
int main()
{
Test t;
int i;
float f;
i = t.template request<int>();
f = t.template request<float>();
}
I'm expecting this to resolve to three different functions, but I'm not sure if it is:
T Test::getVal()
int Test::getVal()
float Test::getVal()
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
You can do this pretty easily by specializing getVal(), though you may have oversimplified the question
class Test {
public:
template <typename T>
T request() {
T ret = getVal<T>();
return ret;
}
private:
float foo = 2.f;
int bar = 1;
template<typename T>
T getVal() {
std::cout << "T is type " << typeid(T).name() << std::endl;
throw std::bad_typeid();
}
};
// add specializations
template<>
float Test::getVal<float>() { return foo; }
template <>
int Test::getVal<int>() { return bar; }
int main() {
Test t;
int i = t.request<int>(); // don't need template keyword here
float f = t.request<float>();
}
If you're able to use c++17, it is even simpler with if constexpr and a single getVal
template<typename T>
auto getVal() {
if constexpr (std::is_same_v<int, T>) {
return foo;
} else if constexpr (std::is_same_v<float, T>) {
return bar;
} else {
std::cout << "T is type " << typeid(T).name() << std::endl;
throw std::bad_typeid();
}
}
Your problem is that template<typename T> T getVal() make call ambiguous when the SFINAEd one succeed.
One solution is to restrict that one with complement condition...
But tag dispatching is an easy alternative way to fix your issue:
template <typename> struct Tag{};
class Test
{
public:
template <typename T>
T request() const
{
return getVal(Tag<T>{});
}
private:
float foo = 2.f;
int bar = 1;
float getVal(Tag<float>) const { return foo; }
int getVal(Tag<int>) const { return bar; }
template<typename T> void getVal(Tag<T>) = delete;
};
I would like to do something like this:
#include <iostream>
class a {
public:
a() : i(2) {}
template <typename ...ts>
void exec() {
f<ts...>();
std::cout << "a::()" << std::endl;
}
int i;
private:
template <typename t>
void f() {
i += t::i;
}
template <typename t, typename ...ts>
void f() {
f<t>();
f<t, ts...>();
}
};
struct b {
static const int i = -9;
};
struct c {
static const int i = 4;
};
int main()
{
a _a;
_a.exec<b,c>();
std::cout << _a.i << std::endl;
}
The idea is to get the same information from a group of classes, without the need of an object of each class.
Does anyone know if it is possible?
Thanks!
In case Your compiler does not support C++17:
template <typename ...ts>
void f() {
for ( const auto &j : { ts::i... } )
i += j;
}
In C++17, your class would simply be
class a {
public:
a() : i(2) {}
template <typename ...ts>
void exec() {
((i += ts::i), ...); // Folding expression // C++17
std::cout << "a::()" << std::endl;
}
int i;
};
Possible in C++11 too, but more verbose.
Reasons why your code is not compiling:
Syntax of specializing templates is a little different.
You need to put the most general case first.
You can't partially specialize functions, only classes.
Partial specialization is not allowed within classes, only in namespaces.
Here is an example for C++11.
#include <iostream>
template<typename t, typename ...ts>
class a {
public:
static constexpr int x = t::i + a<ts...>::x;
};
template<typename t>
class a<t> {
public:
static constexpr int x = 2 + t::i;
};
struct b {
static constexpr int i = -9;
};
struct c {
static constexpr int i = 4;
};
int main()
{
constexpr int result = a<b,c>::x;
std::cout << result << std::endl;
}
Remember that templates are calculated during compilation so, for optimization sake, it is a good idea to write them in a way that allows them to be constexpr.
I want to specialise a single template method in a non-template class to use an std::vector however only the return type of the method uses the template.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
class Foo
{
public:
template<typename T>
T Get()
{
std::cout << "generic" << std::endl;
return T();
}
};
template<>
int Foo::Get()
{
std::cout << "int" << std::endl;
return 12;
}
template<typename T>
std::vector<T> Foo::Get()
{
std::cout << "vector" << std::endl;
return std::vector<T>();
}
int main()
{
Foo foo;
auto s = foo.Get<std::string>();
auto i = foo.Get<int>();
}
This compiles with an error indicating that the std::vector attempted specialisation does not match any prototype of Foo, which is completely understandable.
In case it matters, use of C++14 is fine and dandy.
You can only partially specialize classes (structs) (cppreference) - so the way to overcome your problems is to add helper struct to allow this partial specialization of std::vector<T> - e.g. this way:
class Foo
{
private: // might be also protected or public, depending on your design
template<typename T>
struct GetImpl
{
T operator()()
{
std::cout << "generic" << std::endl;
return T();
}
};
public:
template<typename T>
auto Get()
{
return GetImpl<T>{}();
}
};
For int - you can fully specialize this function:
template<>
int Foo::GetImpl<int>::operator()()
{
std::cout << "int" << std::endl;
return 12;
}
For std::vector<T> you have to specialize entire struct:
template<typename T>
struct Foo::GetImpl<std::vector<T>>
{
std::vector<T> operator()()
{
std::cout << "vector" << std::endl;
return std::vector<T>();
}
};
Partial specialisation of template functions (including member functions) is not allowed. One option is to overload instead using SFINAE. For example,
/// auxiliary for is_std_vetor<> below
struct convertible_from_std::vector
{
template<typename T>
convertible_from_std::vector(std::vector<T> const&);
};
template<typename V>
using is_std_vector
= std::is_convertible<V,convertible_from_std_vector>;
class Foo
{
public:
template<typename T, std::enable_if_t< is_std::vector<T>::value,T>
Get()
{
std::cout << "vector" << std::endl;
return T();
}
template<typename T, std::enable_if_t<!is_std::vector<T>::value,T>
Get()
{
std::cout << "generic" << std::endl;
return T();
}
};
Note that the helper class is_std_vector may be useful in other contexts as well, so it worth having somewhere. Note further that you can make this helper class more versatile by asking for any std::vector or specific std::vector<specific_type, specific_allocator>. For example,
namespace traits {
struct Anytype {};
namespace details {
/// a class that is convertible form C<T,T>
/// if either T==AnyType, any type is possible
template<template<typename,typename> C, typename T1=Anytype,
typename T2=Anytype>
struct convCtTT
{
convCtTT(C<T1,T2> const&);
};
template<template<typename,typename> C, typename T1=Anytype>
struct convCtTT<C,T1,AnyType>
{
template<typename T2>
convCtTT(C<T1,T2> const&);
};
template<template<typename,typename> C, typename T2=Anytype>
struct convCtTT<C,AnyType,T2>
{
template<typename T1>
convCtTT(C<T1,T2> const&);
};
template<template<typename,typename> C>
struct convCtTT<C,AnyType,AnyType>
{
template<typename T1, typename T2>
convCtTT(C<T1,T2> const&);
};
}
template<typename Vector, typename ValueType=AnyType,
typename Allocator=AnyType>
using is_std_vector
= std::is_convertible<Vector,details::convCtTT<std::vector,ValueType,
Allocator>;
}
You can't partially specialze template in c++. You need to overload your function and pass the type in parameters.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
class Foo
{
public:
template<typename T>
T Get()
{
return this->getTemplate(static_cast<T*>(0)); //
}
private:
template<class T> T getTemplate(T* t)
{
std::cout << "generic" << std::endl;
return T();
}
template<class T> std::vector<T> getTemplate(std::vector<T>* t)
{
std::cout << "vector" << std::endl;
return std::vector<T>();
}
};
template <> int Foo::getTemplate(int* t)
{
std::cout << "int" << std::endl;
return 12;
}
int main()
{
Foo foo;
auto s = foo.Get<std::string>();
auto i = foo.Get<int>();
auto v = foo.Get<std::vector<int>>();
}
Edit : fixed a typo in the code
The code below allows me to template a function
taking a parameter which is a vector of one of three different pointer types to Box objects:
const std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Box>>&
const std::vector<std::weak_ptr<Box>>&
const std::vector<Box*>&
Is there a way to extend this to support:
const vector<Box>&
const vector<std::reference_wrapper<Box>>
perhaps something in boost?
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
class Box{
public:
Box (unsigned int id, unsigned int side): id(id), side(side){}
int volume(){
return side * side * side;
}
unsigned int id;
unsigned int side;
};
template <typename T>
struct is_box_containter {
enum { value = false };
};
template <>
struct is_box_containter <std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Box>>> {
enum { value = true };
};
template <>
struct is_box_containter <std::vector<std::weak_ptr<Box>>> {
enum { value = true };
};
template <>
struct is_box_containter <std::vector<Box*>> {
enum { value = true };
};
template <typename T>
typename std::enable_if<is_box_containter<T>::value>::type
measure(T const& boxes )
{
for (auto& box : boxes) {
std::cout << box->id << " has volume " << box->volume() << std::endl;
}
}
int main (){
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Box>> some_boxes;
some_boxes.push_back(std::shared_ptr<Box>(new Box(1,4)));
some_boxes.emplace_back(new Box(2, 12));
Box * box_3 = new Box(3, 8);
Box * box_4 = new Box(4, 9);
std::vector<Box*> more_boxes;
more_boxes.emplace_back(box_3);
more_boxes.emplace_back(box_4);
measure(some_boxes);
measure(more_boxes);
return 0;
}
Why I am asking this question:
I have an application with two functions which implement near identical logic. One takes a list of SomeClass, the other takes a vector of pointers to SomeClass.
I am currently planning on refactoring the code to replace the list of SomeClass with a list of shared pointers to SomeClass. But the only reason I am doing this is to move the logic to a common implementation. I don't want to do that if there is a perfectly reasonable way to avoid it.
If I understood your question correctly, you could use a dereferencing mechanism like below:
template<typename T>
T& dereference(T &v) {
return v;
}
template<typename T>
const T& dereference(const T& v) {
return v;
}
template<typename T>
typename std::enable_if<!std::is_function<T>::value, T&>::type dereference(T* v) {
return dereference(*v);
}
template<typename T>
const T& dereference(const std::shared_ptr<T>& v) {
return dereference(*v);
}
template<typename T>
const T& dereference(const std::weak_ptr<T>& v) {
return dereference(*v);
}
template<typename T>
const T& dereference(const std::reference_wrapper<T>& v) {
return v;
}
and then call your data like:
template <typename T>
typename std::enable_if<is_box_containter<T>::value>::type
measure(T const& boxes )
{
for (auto& box : boxes) {
std::cout << dereference(box).id
<< " has volume " << dereference(box).volume() << std::endl;
}
}
LIVE DEMO
P.S You'll also have to define:
template <>
struct is_box_containter <std::vector<Box>> {
enum { value = true };
};
template <>
struct is_box_containter <std::vector<std::reference_wrapper<Box>>> {
enum { value = true };
};
Given the following declaration:
template<class T>
class A {
void run(T val) {
val.member ...
}
}
This code works fine if no pointers are used:
A<Type> a;
Type t;
a.run(t);
But using a pointer results in an error:
A<Type*> a;
Type* t = new Type();
a.run(t);
error: request for member ‘member’ which is of non-class type ‘T*’
Obviously in this case the member must be accessed via ->. What's the best way to handle this?
I found a solution on SO: Determine if Type is a pointer in a template function
template<typename T>
struct is_pointer { static const bool value = false; };
template<typename T>
struct is_pointer<T*> { static const bool value = true; };
...
if (is_pointer<T>::value) val->member
else val.member
But this is very verbose. Any better ideas?
You could use a simple pair of overloaded function templates:
template<typename T>
T& access(T& t) { return t; }
template<typename T>
T& access(T* t) { return *t; }
And then use them this way:
access(val).member = 42;
For instance:
template<typename T>
struct A
{
void do_it(T& val)
{
access(val).member = 42;
}
};
struct Type
{
int member = 0;
};
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
A<Type> a;
Type t;
a.do_it(t);
std::cout << t.member << std::endl;
A<Type*> a2;
Type* t2 = new Type(); // OK, I don't like this, but just to show
// it does what you want it to do...
a2.do_it(t2);
std::cout << t2->member;
delete t2; // ...but then, don't forget to clean up!
}
Here is a live example.
The best idea is probably to specialize your class for pointer types.
template<class T>
class A{ ...};
template<>
class A<T*> { //implement for pointers
};
If you feel that this is too verbose, you can use overload a get_ref function:
template<class T> T& get_ref(T & r) {return r;}
template<class T> T& get_ref(T* r) {return *r;}
template<class T>
class A {
void do(T val) {
get_ref(val).member ...
}
}