I have looked around a while for a solution to this, however, I might not know the exact definition or language syntax of what I am trying to accomplish, so I decided to post.
I have certain objects/structs like so:
struct A
{
char myChar;
bool hasArray = false;
};
template <uint8_t ARRAY_LEN>
struct AA : public A
{
hasArray = true;
uint8_t myArray[ARRAY_LEN];
};
I want to create a generic function that can take in both of these object types and to perform common work as well as specific work for the derived struct AA. Something like the following:
template <typename T>
void func(T (&m))
{
if (T.hasArray)
{
// do some processing with m.myArray
std::cout << sizeof(m.myArray) << std::endl;
// ...
}
// common processing
std::cout << "myChar: " << m.myChar << std::endl;
};
I want to be able to call the function like so:
A a;
AA aa;
func(a); // compiler error, this would not work as no array member
func(aa); // this works
Granted this is just an example that illustrates my intent, but it sums up what I would like to do. The actual code is a lot more complex and involved many more objects. I know I can overload, but I want to know if there is a way to do it with one generic function? Also note that I understand why the compiler complains with the sample code I would like to know if there is a workaround or some other c++ functionality that I am missing. I would not like to do any type casting...
- Using c++11 and GCC 4.8.5
This is a C++14 feature of reasonably large complexity. C++17 introduced if constexpr to make this easier; but it is doable.
template<std::size_t I>
using index_t=std::integral_constant<std::size_t, I>;
template<std::size_t I>
constexpr index_t<I> index{};
constexpr inline index_t<0> dispatch_index() { return {}; }
template<class B0, class...Bs,
std::enable_if_t<B0::value, int> =0
>
constexpr index_t<0> dispatch_index( B0, Bs... ) { return {}; }
template<class B0, class...Bs,
std::enable_if_t<!B0::value, int> =0
>
constexpr auto dispatch_index( B0, Bs... ) {
return index< 1 + dispatch_index( decltype(Bs){}...) >;
}
template<class...Bs>
auto dispatch( Bs... ) {
using I = decltype(dispatch_index( decltype(Bs){}... ));
return [](auto&&...args)->decltype(auto){
return std::get<I::value>( std::make_tuple(decltype(args)(args)..., [](auto&&...){}) );
};
}
dispatch( some_test ) returns a lambda that takes auto&&.... It in turn returns the first argument if some_test is of a true-like-type, and the second argument (or [](auto&&...){} if no second argument) if some_test is of a false-like-type.
We then write code to detect your myArray.
namespace details {
template<template<class...>class Z, class=void, class...Ts>
struct can_apply:std::false_type{};
template<template<class...>class Z, class...Ts>
struct can_apply<Z, std::void_t<Z<Ts...>>, Ts...>:std::true_type{};
}
template<template<class...>class Z, class...Ts>
using can_apply = typename details::can_apply<Z, void, Ts...>::type;
template<class T>
using myArray_type = decltype( std::declval<T>().myArray );
template<class T>
using has_myArray = can_apply< myArray_type, T >;
and has_myArray<T> is true-like if T has a member .myArray.
We hook these together
dispatch( has_myArray<T>{} )(
[&](auto&& m) {
// do some processing with m.myArray
std::cout << sizeof(m.myArray) << std::endl;
// ...
}
)( m );
and now the lambda in the middle is run if and only if m.myArray is valid.
More complex tests that check for more than just existence can be written, but the above is usually sufficient.
In a non-C++11 compiler like MSVC 2015, replace
std::enable_if_t<B0::value, int> =0
and
std::enable_if_t<!B0::value, int> =0
with
class = std::enable_if_t<B0::value>
and
class = std::enable_if_t<!B0::value>, class=void
respectively. Yes, these are uglier. Go talk to MSVC compiler team.
If your compiler lacks C++14, you'll have to write your own void_t and either write your own enable_if_t or use the ugly longer version using enable_if.
In addition, the template variable index is illegal in C++11. Replace index<blah> with index_t<blah>{}.
The lack of auto&& lambdas makes the above very painful; you may have to convert the lambda to an out-of-line function object. However, auto lambdas where one of the first C++14 features people implemented, often before they finished C++11.
The above code is solid designed, but may contain typos.
Overloading works just fine in your case if you don't want to modify your instances:
#include<iostream>
#include<cstdint>
struct A
{
char myChar;
};
template <uint8_t ARRAY_LEN>
struct AA : public A
{
uint8_t myArray[ARRAY_LEN];
};
void func(const A &m)
{
std::cout << "myChar: " << m.myChar << std::endl;
};
template <uint8_t AL>
void func(const AA<AL> &m)
{
std::cout << sizeof(m.myArray) << std::endl;
func(static_cast<const A &>(m));
}
int main() {
func(A{});
func(AA<1>{});
}
If you still want to go with a template function and a bit of sfinae, I would probably use something like this instead:
#include<iostream>
#include<cstdint>
struct A
{
char myChar;
};
template <uint8_t ARRAY_LEN>
struct AA : public A
{
uint8_t myArray[ARRAY_LEN];
};
void func(A &m)
{
std::cout << "myChar: " << m.myChar << std::endl;
}
template <typename T>
auto func(T &m) -> decltype(m.myArray, void())
{
std::cout << sizeof(m.myArray) << std::endl;
A &a = m;
func(a);
}
int main() {
AA<1> aa{};
A a{};
func(a);
func(aa);
}
Note that in both cases you don't actually require the hasArray member data.
there is a way to do it with one generic function?
I don't think so, because if you insert a sizeof(m.myArray) in this function, you can't call it with a type without a myArray member. Even if it is in a part of code that, run time, isn't executed, because the compiler need to compile it.
But, if I understand correctly, your hasArray say if your struct has a myArray member or not. So I suppose you can transform it in a static constexpr member, as follows
struct A
{
static constexpr bool hasArray { false };
char myChar { 'z' };
};
template <uint8_t ARRAY_LEN>
struct AA : public A
{
static constexpr bool hasArray { true };
uint8_t myArray[ARRAY_LEN];
};
Now, in func(), you can call a second function, func2(), to choose the two cases: myArray or not myArray. You can use SFINAE for this but (IMHO) is better tag dispatching, in this case. So you can transform your hasArray in a different type
template <typename T>
void func2 (T const & m, std::true_type const &)
{ std::cout << sizeof(m.myArray) << ", "; }
template <typename T>
void func2 (T const &, std::false_type const &)
{ }
template <typename T>
void func(T (&m))
{
func2(m, std::integral_constant<bool, T::hasArray>{});
// common processing
std::cout << "myChar: " << m.myChar << std::endl;
}
Now you can call func() with both types
int main()
{
A a;
AA<12U> aa;
func(a); // print myChar: z
func(aa); // print 12, myChar: z
}
Remember to include type_traits and iostream.
Related
While trying to solve Is it possible to tell if a class has hidden a base function in C++?, I generated this:
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
#define ENABLE_IF(...) std::enable_if_t<(__VA_ARGS__), int> = 0
template<class T, class B, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<void(T::*)(), decltype(&T::x)>::value)>
auto has_x_f(T*) -> std::true_type;
template<class T, class B>
auto has_x_f(B*) -> std::false_type;
template<class T, class B>
using has_x = decltype(has_x_f<T, B>((T*)nullptr));
template<typename T>
struct A
{
void x() {}
static const bool x_hidden;
template <typename R, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<T, R>::value && x_hidden)>
void y(R value)
{
std::cout << "x() is hidden" << std::endl;
}
template <typename R, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<T, R>::value && !x_hidden)>
void y(R value)
{
std::cout << "x() is not hidden" << std::endl;
}
//using t = std::integral_constant<bool, x_hidden>;
};
struct B : A<B>
{
void x() {}
};
struct C : A<C>
{
};
template<typename T>
const bool A<T>::x_hidden = has_x<T, A<T>>::value;
int main()
{
B b;
C c;
std::cout << "B: ";
std::cout << b.x_hidden << std::endl;
std::cout << "C: ";
std::cout << c.x_hidden << std::endl;
std::cout << "B: ";
b.y(b);
std::cout << "C: ";
c.y(c);
return 0;
}
Which outputs what I want:
B: 1
C: 0
B: x() is hidden
C: x() is not hidden
clang and gcc both compile and execute this "correctly", but vc++ doesn't (though I am aware that there are problems with it working properly with expressions similar to template <typename T> ... decltype(fn(std::declval<T>().mfn()))).
So my question is, is this considered valid or will it break later on? I'm also curious about the x_hidden being able to be used as a template parameter in the functions but not being able to use it in using t = std::integral_constant<bool, x_hidden>. Is that just because the template's type isn't fully declared at this point? If so, why did using it work for the function declarations?
If x_hidden is false, there is no template arguements for which this template function
template <typename R, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<T, R>::value && x_hidden)>
void y(R value) {
std::cout << "x() is hidden" << std::endl;
}
can be instantiated, so your program is ill formed no diagnostic required. This is a common hack, its illegality may be made clear or even legal at some point.
There may be a reason for using has_x_f instead of just directly initializing is_hidden with the is_same clause, but it isn't demonstrated in your code.
For any template specialization, there must be arguments which would make the instantiation valid. If there are not, the program is ill-formed no diagnostic required.
I believe this clause is in the standard to permit compilers to do more advanced checks on templates, but not require them.
template <typename R, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<T, R>::value && x_hidden)>
void y(R value)
{
std::cout << "x() is hidden" << std::endl;
}
the compiler is free to notice x_hidden is false, and say "it doesn't matter what is_same<T,R> is", and deduce that no template arguments could make this specialization valid. Then generate an error.
An easy hack is
template <class T2=T, class R,
ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<T2, R>::value && has_x<T2, A<T2>>::value)
>
void y(R value)
{
std::cout << "x() is hidden" << std::endl;
}
where we sneak another template argument in that equals T usually. Now, the compiler has to admit the possibility that T2 passes the has_x test, and that the passed argument is R. Users can bypass this by manually passing the "wrong" T2.
This may not solve everything. The standard is a bit tricky to read here, but one reading states that if within the body of y() we go and assume that our T itself has x(), we still violate the rule of the possibility of a valid template instantiation.
[temp.res] 14.6/8 (root and 1)
Knowing which names are type names allows the syntax of every template to be checked. The program is ill-formed, no diagnostic required, if:
no valid specialization can be generated for a template [...] and the template is not instantiated, or
No valid specialization for
template <typename R, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<T, R>::value && x_hidden)>
void y(R value)
{
std::cout << "x() is hidden" << std::endl;
}
can be generated if x_hidden is false. The exitence of another overload is immaterial.
If you fix it using the T2 trick, the same rule holds if the body assumes T=T2.
Three are words in the standard that attempt to not cause the template to be instantiated in certain contexts, but I am unsure if that makes the above code well formed or not.
I tried compiling your code with the Intel C++ compiler(icpc (ICC) 17.0.2 20170213), and it would not compile with the following message:
main.cpp(30): error: expression must have a constant value
template <typename R, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<T, R>::value && !x_hidden)>
^
/home/com/gcc/6.2.0/bin/../include/c++/6.2.0/type_traits(2512): error: class "std::enable_if<<error-constant>, int>" has no member "type"
using enable_if_t = typename enable_if<_Cond, _Tp>::type;
^
detected during instantiation of type "std::enable_if_t<<error-constant>, int>" at line 30 of "main.cpp"
main.cpp(62): error: more than one instance of overloaded function "B::y" matches the argument list:
function template "void A<T>::y(R) [with T=B]"
function template "void A<T>::y(R) [with T=B]"
argument types are: (B)
object type is: B
b.y(b);
I was however able to compile the following with both the Intel compiler and GCC.
#include <iostream>
#define ENABLE_IF(...) std::enable_if_t<(__VA_ARGS__), int> = 0
template<class T, class B, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<void(T::*)(), decltype(&T::x)>::value)>
auto has_x_f(T*) -> std::true_type;
template<class T, class B>
auto has_x_f(B*) -> std::false_type;
template<class T, class B>
using has_x = decltype(has_x_f<T, B>((T*)nullptr));
template<class T>
class A
{
public:
T& self() { return static_cast<T&>(*this); }
void x() { }
template
< class TT = T
, typename std::enable_if<has_x<TT, A<TT> >::value, int>::type = 0
>
void y()
{
std::cout << " have x hidden " << std::endl;
// if you are so inclined, you can call x() in a "safe" way
this->self().x(); // Calls x() from class "Derived" (Here class B)
}
template
< class TT = T
, typename std::enable_if<!has_x<TT, A<TT> >::value, int>::type = 0
>
void y()
{
std::cout << " does not have x hidden " << std::endl;
// if you are so inclined, you can call x() in a "safe" way
this->self().x(); // Calls x() from class "Base" (Here class A)
}
};
class B : public A<B>
{
public:
void x() { }
};
class C : public A<C>
{
};
int main()
{
B b;
C c;
b.y();
c.y();
return 0;
}
I am not aware whether or not this is incorrect according to the standard however, but as I see it you do not run into the problem mentioned in one of the other answers, that you have a template that cannot be instantiated.
EDIT: I was able to get to compile on MSVC 2017 by some "old-times" template metaprogramming tricks, and using classes instead of functions.
If I use this implementation of has_x instead it compiles:
template<class T, bool>
struct has_x_impl;
template<class T>
struct has_x_impl<T, true>: std::true_type
{
};
template<class T>
struct has_x_impl<T, false>: std::false_type
{
};
template<class T>
using has_x = has_x_impl<T, std::is_same<void(T::*)(), decltype(&T::x)>::value>;
Full code on Wandbox here.
I had a bit of a code clean-up (got rid of the out-of-line x_hidden declaration) and ended up with the following. I also fixed it slightly based on #Yakk's answer above, to avoid [temp.res]/8 invalidating it.
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
#define ENABLE_IF(...) std::enable_if_t<(__VA_ARGS__), int> = 0
template<class T, class Base, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<void(T::*)(), decltype(&T::x)>::value)>
auto has_x_f() -> std::true_type;
template<class T, class Base, ENABLE_IF(std::is_same<void(Base::*)(), decltype(&T::x)>::value)>
auto has_x_f() -> std::false_type;
template<class T, class Base>
using has_x = decltype(has_x_f<T, Base>());
template<typename T>
struct A
{
void x() {}
static bool constexpr x_hidden() {
return has_x<T, A<T>>::value;
}
void y()
{
assert(x_hidden() == y_<T>(nullptr) );
}
void y2()
{
if constexpr(x_hidden()) {
typename T::BType i = 1;
(void)i;
} else {
typename T::CType i = 1;
(void)i;
}
}
private:
template <typename R, typename T2=T, ENABLE_IF(A<T2>::x_hidden())>
static bool y_(R*)
{
std::cout << "x() is hidden" << std::endl;
return true;
}
template <typename R, typename T2=T, ENABLE_IF(!A<R>::x_hidden())>
static bool y_(T*)
{
std::cout << "x() is not hidden" << std::endl;
return false;
}
};
struct B : A<B>
{
void x() {}
using BType = int;
};
static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(&B::x), void(B::*)()>::value, "B::x is a member of B");
struct C : A<C>
{
using CType = int;
};
static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(&C::x), void(A<C>::*)()>::value, "C::x is a member of A<C>");
int main()
{
B b;
C c;
std::cout << "B: ";
std::cout << B::x_hidden() << std::endl;
std::cout << "C: ";
std::cout << C::x_hidden() << std::endl;
std::cout << "B: ";
b.y();
b.y2();
std::cout << "C: ";
c.y();
c.y2();
return 0;
}
Live demo on wandbox -- gcc and clang are both happy with it.
MSVC 2017 complained
error C2064: term does not evaluate to a function taking 0 arguments
for both uses of A<T2>::x_hidden(), when instantiating A<B> for B to inherit from.
MSVC 2015 gave the same complaint, and then suffered an Internal Compiler Error. ^_^
So I think this is valid, but exercises MSVC's constexpr or template instantiation machinery in unpleasant ways.
Per the example in [expr.unary.op]/3, the type of &B::x is void (B::*)(), and the type of &C::x is void (A<C>::*)(). So the first has_x_f() will be present when T is B, and the second has_x_f() will be present when T is C and Base is A<C>.
Per [temp.inst]/2, instantiating the class instantiates declarations but not definitions of the members. Per [temp.inst]/3 and 4, member function definitions (including template functions) are not instantiated until required.
Our declarations here are currently different, as the use of R and T2 mean the compiler cannot determine the truth or falsehood of either size of the &&.
The use of the different parameter types helps MSVC, which would otherwise see them as redefinitions of the same template member template function. My reading of [temp.inst]/2 says this is not needed, as they're only redefintions when we instantiate them, and they cannot be instantiated at the same time. Because we use A<T2>::x_hidden() and !A<R>::x_hidden(), the compiler cannot know that they are mutually exclusive at this time. I don't think it's necessary to do that to avoid [temp.res]/8, simply using A<R>::x_hidden() seems safe-enough to me. This was also to ensure that in the two templates, R as actually used.
From there on, it's pretty easy. y() shows we have the right values coming from both paths.
Depend on your use-case, you could use if constexpr with x_hidden() to avoid all the template magic in y_(), per y2() above.
This avoids the issue with [temp.res]/8 described in #Yakk's answer, as the problematic clause [temp.res]/8.1 is that the template is ill-formed if
no valid specialization can be generated for a template or a substatement of a constexpr if statement within a template and the template is not instantiated, [...]
So as long as you instantiate A<T>::y2() for some T, then you're not subject to this clause.
The y2() approach has the advantage of working with MSVC2017, as long as you pass in the "/std:c++latest" compiler flag.
I am trying to get a better understanding of std::enable_if in C++11 and have been trying to write a minimal example: a class A with a member function void foo() that has different implementations based on the type T from the class template.
The below code gives the desired result, but I am not understanding it fully yet. Why does version V2 work, but not V1? Why is the "redundant" type U required?
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename T>
class A {
public:
A(T x) : a_(x) {}
// Enable this function if T == int
/* V1 */ // template < typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<T,int>::value,int>::type = 0>
/* V2 */ template <typename U=T, typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U,int>::value,int>::type = 0>
void foo() { std::cout << "\nINT: " << a_ << "\n"; }
// Enable this function if T == double
template <typename U=T, typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U,double>::value,int>::type = 0>
void foo() { std::cout << "\nDOUBLE: " << a_ << "\n"; }
private:
T a_;
};
int main() {
A<int> aInt(1); aInt.foo();
A<double> aDouble(3.14); aDouble.foo();
return 0;
}
Is there a better way to achieve the desired result, i.e. for having different implementations of a void foo() function based on a class template parameter?
I know this wont fully answer your question, but it might give you some more ideas and understanding of how you can use std::enable_if.
You could replace your foo member functions with the following and have identical functionality:
template<typename U=T> typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U,int>::value>::type
foo(){ /* enabled when T is type int */ }
template<typename U=T> typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U,double>::value>::type
foo(){ /* enabled when T is type double */ }
A while back I gained a pretty good understanding of how enable_if works, but sadly I have forgotten most of its intricacies and just remember the more practical ways to use it.
As for the first question: why V1 doesn't work? SFINAE applies only in overload resolution - V1 however causes error at the point where type A is instantiated, well before foo() overload resolution.
I suppose there are lot's of possible implementations - which is the most appropriate depends on an actual case in question. A common approach would be to defer the part of A that's different for different template types to a helper class.
template <typename T>
class A_Helper;
template <>
class A_Helper<int> {
public:
static void foo( int value ){
std::cout << "INT: " << value << std::endl;
}
};
template <>
class A_Helper<double> {
public:
static void foo( double value ){
std::cout << "DOUBLE: " << value << std::endl;
}
};
template <typename T>
class A {
public:
A( T a ) : a_(a)
{}
void foo(){
A_Helper<T>::foo(a_);
}
private:
T a_;
};
The rest of A can be declared only once in a generic way - only the parts that differ are deferred to a helper. There is a lot of possible variations on that - depending on your requirements...
I have a class template Function that takes a unsigned integer as a template argument, for the number of inputs. This template overloads operator() so the Function can be evaluated for a set of given inputs.
Usually, one of the prototypes for this member would be operator()(double, ...). However, if the template argument is 0, then that prototype wouldn't work, as it requires at least one argument.
template <unsigned Arity>
struct Function {
void operator () (double, ...);
};
Normally, I'd just write a template specialization, but there would be a lot of redundant code since there are a lot of other member functions. Again, normally, I'd make a base class containing the redundant code for the main class definition and the specialization to inherit from.
struct FunctionBase {
// Common code
Function operator + (Function const &) const; // ?
};
template <unsigned Arity>
struct Function : FunctionBase { /* etc */ };
Unfortunately, I'm unsure how to go about doing this, since for example operator+ is meant to return a Function. But how can it do this if Function is only defined later on? Function inherits from the base class, and by this design operator+ is in the base class...
It could return an instance of the base class, but then we need a way to convert that instance to an instance of Function, and I know of no way to do this without copying the first instance's data, which is very expensive in terms of performance.
How can I accomplish this?
The question is quite difficult to answer for it's far from being clear.
Below two possibile alternatives that try to address your issues:
If you want to go ahead with Arity template parameter, you can use sfinae'd operators to deal with Arity equal to 0:
#include<iostream>
template<int Arity>
struct Function {
template<int N = Arity>
std::enable_if_t<N == 0> operator()() {
std::cout << "arity == 0" << std::endl;
}
template<int N = Arity>
std::enable_if_t<N != 0> operator()(double, ...) {
std::cout << "arity != 0" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
Function<0> f1;
Function<2> f2;
f1();
f2(0., 42);
}
This way you no longer need to introduce a base class and all the related problems don't apply anymore.
If you mind changing approach instead, you can switch to the following pattern for your function object:
template<typename>
struct Function;
template<typename R, typename... A>
struct Function<R(A...)> {
R operator()(A... args) {
// ...
}
// ...
};
You can use it as it follows:
Function<void(int, char)> f;
If you want to have a fixed double as you first parameter for operator(), you can do this:
template<typename R, typename... A>
struct Function<R(double, A...)> {
R operator()(double d, A... args) {
// ...
}
// ...
};
And use it as it follows:
Function<void(double, int, char)> f1;
Function<void(double)> f1;
This will help at least dealing easily with empty parameter packs (note that sizeof...(A) will return you the number of submitted parameters in any case).
It follows a minimal, working example implementation:
#include<iostream>
template<typename>
struct Function;
template<typename R, typename... A>
struct Function<R(A...)> {
R operator()(A... args) {
int _[] = { 0, (std::cout << args << std::endl, 0)... };
(void)_;
}
template<typename... O>
Function<R(A..., O...)> operator+(Function<R(O...)>) {
return {};
}
// ...
};
int main() {
Function<void(int)> f1;
Function<void(double)> f2;
f1(42);
f2(0.);
(f1+f2)(3, .3);
}
From this question Why should I avoid std::enable_if in function signatures it seems I should be able to write
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
enum Class {
Primary,
Secondary
};
template<Class C>
class Entity {
public:
template<typename Cls = C, typename Sec = Secondary, std::enable_if<std::is_same<Cls, Sec>::value>::type = 0>
void onlyLegalForSecondaryEntities() {
std::cout << "Works" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
Entity<Secondary> e;
e.onlyLegalForSecondaryEntities();
return 0;
}
But this fails compilation with error prog.cpp:13:7: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed
How do I get this code to compile?
Your use of Class for an enum is a horrible idea. Don't use language keywords with capitalization differences as type names.
C is a compile-time value of type Class. It is not a type.
typename Cls = C attempts to assign a value of type Class to a type. This is an error akin to saying "picking up a sad". sad is not a noun, it is not something you can pick up.
The easiest way to make your code compile is to delete onlyLegalForSecondaryEntities entirely, and all references to it.
In general, under the standard you cannot have a template method which is only valid when certain arguments are passed to the template class it exists within. Doing so makes your program ill formed, no diagnostic required.
This is close:
template<Class Cls = C,
std::enable_if_t< Cls == Secondary, int> =0
>
void onlyLegalForSecondaryEntities() {
std::cout << "Works" << std::endl;
}
except that even on Entity<Primary>, you can do .onlyLegalForSecondaryEntities<Secondary>().
If you don't want to permit this, I'd use CRTP.
template<bool b, class D>
struct empty_if_false {};
template<class D>
struct empty_if_false<true, D> {
D* self() { return static_cast<D*>(this); }
D const* self() const { return static_cast<D*>(this); }
void onlyLegalForSecondaryEntities() {
// use self() instead of this in this method to get at a this pointer
std::cout << "Works" << std::endl;
}
};
then:
template<Class C>
class Entity:public empty_if_false< C==Secondary, Entity<C> > {
to conditionally have the method.
How can I use std::make_tuple if the execution order of the constructors is important?
For example I guess the execution order of the constructor of class A and the constructor of class B is undefined for:
std::tuple<A, B> t(std::make_tuple(A(std::cin), B(std::cin)));
I came to that conclusion after reading a comment to the question
Translating a std::tuple into a template parameter pack
that says that this
template<typename... args>
std::tuple<args...> parse(std::istream &stream) {
return std::make_tuple(args(stream)...);
}
implementation has an undefined execution order of the constructors.
Update, providing some context:
To give some more background to what I am trying to do, here is a sketch:
I want to read in some serialized objects from stdin with the help of CodeSynthesis XSD binary parsing/serializing. Here is an example of how such parsing and serialization is done: example/cxx/tree/binary/xdr/driver.cxx
xml_schema::istream<XDR> ixdr (xdr);
std::auto_ptr<catalog> copy (new catalog (ixdr));
I want to be able to specify a list of the classes that the serialized objects have (e.g. catalog, catalog, someOtherSerializableClass for 3 serialized objects) and store that information as a typedef
template <typename... Args>
struct variadic_typedef {};
typedef variadic_typedef<catalog, catalog, someOtherSerializableClass> myTypes;
as suggested in Is it possible to “store” a template parameter pack without expanding it?
and find a way to get a std::tuple to work with after the parsing has finished. A sketch:
auto serializedObjects(binaryParse<myTypes>(std::cin));
where serializedObjects would have the type
std::tuple<catalog, catalog, someOtherSerializableClass>
The trivial solution is not to use std::make_tuple(...) in the first place but to construct a std::tuple<...> directly: The order in which constructors for the members are called is well defined:
template <typename>
std::istream& dummy(std::istream& in) {
return in;
}
template <typename... T>
std::tuple<T...> parse(std::istream& in) {
return std::tuple<T...>(dummy<T>(in)...);
}
The function template dummy<T>() is only used to have something to expand on. The order is imposed by construction order of the elements in the std::tuple<T...>:
template <typename... T>
template <typename... U>
std::tuple<T...>::tuple(U...&& arg)
: members_(std::forward<U>(arg)...) { // NOTE: pseudo code - the real code is
} // somewhat more complex
Following the discussion below and Xeo's comment it seems that a better alternative is to use
template <typename... T>
std::tuple<T...> parse(std::istream& in) {
return std::tuple<T...>{ T(in)... };
}
The use of brace initialization works because the order of evaluation of the arguments in a brace initializer list is the order in which they appear. The semantics of T{...} are described in 12.6.1 [class.explicit.init] paragraph 2 stating that it follows the rules of list initialization semantics (note: this has nothing to do with std::initializer_list which only works with homogenous types). The ordering constraint is in 8.5.4 [dcl.init.list] paragraph 4.
As the comment says, you could just use initializer-list:
return std::tuple<args...>{args(stream)...};
which will work for std::tuple and suchlikes (which supports initializer-list).
But I got another solution which is more generic, and can be useful where initializer-list cannot be used. So lets solve this without using initializer-list:
template<typename... args>
std::tuple<args...> parse(std::istream &stream) {
return std::make_tuple(args(stream)...);
}
Before I explain my solution, I would like to discuss the problem first. In fact, thinking about the problem step by step would also help us to come up with a solution eventually. So, to simply the discussion (and thinking-process), lets assume that args expands to 3 distinct types viz. X, Y, Z, i.e args = {X, Y, Z} and then we can think along these lines, reaching towards the solution step-by-step:
First and foremost, the constructors of X, Y, and Z can be executed in any order, because the order in which function arguments are evaluated is unspecified by the C++ Standard.
But we want X to construct first, then Y, and Z. Or at least we want to simulate that behavior, which means X must be constructed with data that is in the beginning of the input stream (say that data is xData) and Y must be constructed with data that comes immediately after xData, and so on.
As we know, X is not guaranteed to be constructed first, so we need to pretend. Basically, we will read the data from the stream as if it is in the beginning of the stream, even if Z is constructed first, that seems impossible. It is impossible as long as we read from the input stream, but we read data from some indexable data structure such as std::vector, then it is possible.
So my solution does this: it will populate a std::vector first, and then all arguments will read data from this vector.
My solution assumes that each line in the stream contains all the data needed to construct an object of any type.
Code:
//PARSE FUNCTION
template<typename... args>
std::tuple<args...> parse(std::istream &stream)
{
const int N = sizeof...(args);
return tuple_maker<args...>().make(stream, typename genseq<N>::type() );
}
And tuple_maker is defined as:
//FRAMEWORK - HELPER ETC
template<int ...>
struct seq {};
template<int M, int ...N>
struct genseq : genseq<M-1,M-1, N...> {};
template<int ...N>
struct genseq<0,N...>
{
typedef seq<N...> type;
};
template<typename...args>
struct tuple_maker
{
template<int ...N>
std::tuple<args...> make(std::istream & stream, const seq<N...> &)
{
return std::make_tuple(args(read_arg<N>(stream))...);
}
std::vector<std::string> m_params;
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<std::stringstream>> m_streams;
template<int Index>
std::stringstream & read_arg(std::istream & stream)
{
if ( m_params.empty() )
{
std::string line;
while ( std::getline(stream, line) ) //read all at once!
{
m_params.push_back(line);
}
}
auto pstream = new std::stringstream(m_params.at(Index));
m_streams.push_back(std::unique_ptr<std::stringstream>(pstream));
return *pstream;
}
};
TEST CODE
///TEST CODE
template<int N>
struct A
{
std::string data;
A(std::istream & stream)
{
stream >> data;
}
friend std::ostream& operator << (std::ostream & out, A<N> const & a)
{
return out << "A" << N << "::data = " << a.data ;
}
};
//three distinct classes!
typedef A<1> A1;
typedef A<2> A2;
typedef A<3> A3;
int main()
{
std::stringstream ss("A1\nA2\nA3\n");
auto tuple = parse<A1,A2,A3>(ss);
std::cout << std::get<0>(tuple) << std::endl;
std::cout << std::get<1>(tuple) << std::endl;
std::cout << std::get<2>(tuple) << std::endl;
}
Output:
A1::data = A1
A2::data = A2
A3::data = A3
which is expected. See demo at ideone yourself. :-)
Note that this solution avoids the order-of-reading-from-the-stream problem by reading all the lines in the first call to read_arg itself, and all the later calls just read from the std::vector, using the index.
Now you can put some printf in the constructor of the classes, just to see that the order of construction is not same as the order of template arguments to the parse function template, which is interesting. Also, the technique used here can be useful for places where list-initialization cannot be used.
There's nothing special about make_tuple here. Any function call in C++ allows its arguments to be called in an unspecified order (allowing the compiler freedom to optimize).
I really don't suggest having constructors that have side-effects such that the order is important (this will be a maintenance nightmare), but if you absolutely need this, you can always construct the objects explicitly to set the order you want:
A a(std::cin);
std::tuple<A, B> t(std::make_tuple(a, B(std::cin)));
This answer comes from a comment I made to the template pack question
Since make_tuple deduces the tuple type from the constructed components and function arguments have undefined evaluation ordder, the construction has to happen inside the machinery, which is what I proposed in the comment. In that case, there's no need to use make_tuple; you could construct the tuple directly from the tuple type. But that doesn't order construction either; what I do here is construct each component of the tuple, and then build a tuple of references to the components. The tuple of references can be easily converted to a tuple of the desired type, provided the components are easy to move or copy.
Here's the solution (from the lws link in the comment) slightly modified, and explained a bit. This version only handles tuples whose types are all different, but it's easier to understand; there's another version below which does it correctly. As with the original, the tuple components are all given the same constructor argument, but changing that simply requires adding a ... to the lines indicated with // Note: ...
#include <tuple>
#include <type_traits>
template<typename...T> struct ConstructTuple {
// For convenience, the resulting tuple type
using type = std::tuple<T...>;
// And the tuple of references type
using ref_type = std::tuple<T&...>;
// Wrap each component in a struct which will be used to construct the component
// and hold its value.
template<typename U> struct Wrapper {
U value;
template<typename Arg>
Wrapper(Arg&& arg)
: value(std::forward<Arg>(arg)) {
}
};
// The implementation class derives from all of the Wrappers.
// C++ guarantees that base classes are constructed in order, and
// Wrappers are listed in the specified order because parameter packs don't
// reorder.
struct Impl : Wrapper<T>... {
template<typename Arg> Impl(Arg&& arg) // Note ...Arg, ...arg
: Wrapper<T>(std::forward<Arg>(arg))... {}
};
template<typename Arg> ConstructTuple(Arg&& arg) // Note ...Arg, ...arg
: impl(std::forward<Arg>(arg)), // Note ...
value((static_cast<Wrapper<T>&>(impl)).value...) {
}
operator type() const { return value; }
ref_type operator()() const { return value; }
Impl impl;
ref_type value;
};
// Finally, a convenience alias in case we want to give `ConstructTuple`
// a tuple type instead of a list of types:
template<typename Tuple> struct ConstructFromTupleHelper;
template<typename...T> struct ConstructFromTupleHelper<std::tuple<T...>> {
using type = ConstructTuple<T...>;
};
template<typename Tuple>
using ConstructFromTuple = typename ConstructFromTupleHelper<Tuple>::type;
Let's take it for a spin
#include <iostream>
// Three classes with constructors
struct Hello { char n; Hello(decltype(n) n) : n(n) { std::cout << "Hello, "; }; };
struct World { double n; World(decltype(n) n) : n(n) { std::cout << "world"; }; };
struct Bang { int n; Bang(decltype(n) n) : n(n) { std::cout << "!\n"; }; };
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const Hello& g) { return out << g.n; }
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const World& g) { return out << g.n; }
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const Bang& g) { return out << g.n; }
using std::get;
using Greeting = std::tuple<Hello, World, Bang>;
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const Greeting &n) {
return out << get<0>(n) << ' ' << get<1>(n) << ' ' << get<2>(n);
}
int main() {
// Constructors run in order
Greeting greet = ConstructFromTuple<Greeting>(33.14159);
// Now show the result
std::cout << greet << std::endl;
return 0;
}
See it in action on liveworkspace. Verify that it constructs in the same order in both clang and gcc (libc++'s tuple implementation holds tuple components in the reverse order to stdlibc++, so it's a reasonable test, I guess.)
To make this work with tuples which might have more than one of the same component, it's necessary to modify Wrapper to be a unique struct for each component. The easiest way to do this is to add a second template parameter, which is a sequential index (both libc++ and libstdc++ do this in their tuple implementations; it's a standard technique). It would be handy to have the "indices" implementation kicking around to do this, but for exposition purposes, I've just done a quick-and-dirty recursion:
#include <tuple>
#include <type_traits>
template<typename T, int I> struct Item {
using type = T;
static const int value = I;
};
template<typename...TI> struct ConstructTupleI;
template<typename...T, int...I> struct ConstructTupleI<Item<T, I>...> {
using type = std::tuple<T...>;
using ref_type = std::tuple<T&...>;
// I is just to distinguish different wrappers from each other
template<typename U, int J> struct Wrapper {
U value;
template<typename Arg>
Wrapper(Arg&& arg)
: value(std::forward<Arg>(arg)) {
}
};
struct Impl : Wrapper<T, I>... {
template<typename Arg> Impl(Arg&& arg)
: Wrapper<T, I>(std::forward<Arg>(arg))... {}
};
template<typename Arg> ConstructTupleI(Arg&& arg)
: impl(std::forward<Arg>(arg)),
value((static_cast<Wrapper<T, I>&>(impl)).value...) {
}
operator type() const { return value; }
ref_type operator()() const { return value; }
Impl impl;
ref_type value;
};
template<typename...T> struct List{};
template<typename L, typename...T> struct WrapNum;
template<typename...TI> struct WrapNum<List<TI...>> {
using type = ConstructTupleI<TI...>;
};
template<typename...TI, typename T, typename...Rest>
struct WrapNum<List<TI...>, T, Rest...>
: WrapNum<List<TI..., Item<T, sizeof...(TI)>>, Rest...> {
};
// Use WrapNum to make ConstructTupleI from ConstructTuple
template<typename...T> using ConstructTuple = typename WrapNum<List<>, T...>::type;
// Finally, a convenience alias in case we want to give `ConstructTuple`
// a tuple type instead of a list of types:
template<typename Tuple> struct ConstructFromTupleHelper;
template<typename...T> struct ConstructFromTupleHelper<std::tuple<T...>> {
using type = ConstructTuple<T...>;
};
template<typename Tuple>
using ConstructFromTuple = typename ConstructFromTupleHelper<Tuple>::type;
With test here.
I believe the only way to manually unroll the definition. Something like the following might work. I welcome attempts to make it nicer though.
#include <iostream>
#include <tuple>
struct A { A(std::istream& is) {}};
struct B { B(std::istream& is) {}};
template <typename... Ts>
class Parser
{ };
template <typename T>
class Parser<T>
{
public:
static std::tuple<T> parse(std::istream& is) {return std::make_tuple(T(is)); }
};
template <typename T, typename... Ts>
class Parser<T, Ts...>
{
public:
static std::tuple<T,Ts...> parse(std::istream& is)
{
A t(is);
return std::tuple_cat(std::tuple<T>(std::move(t)),
Parser<Ts...>::parse(is));
}
};
int main()
{
Parser<A,B>::parse(std::cin);
return 1;
}