From here on a (endo)functor is something able to take an object and transform it in another object of the same type. The simplest example of functor is the identity:
struct Identity {
template <typename T>
T Apply(T x) {
return x
}
};
I need to have a "Functor type" that identifies a generic Functor. What I would like to do is write code like:
class Sum {
public:
Sum(Functor* f, Functor* g) :
f_(f),
g_(g) {}
template <typename T>
T Apply(T x) { return f_->Apply(x) + g_->Apply(x); }
private
Functor* f_;
Functor* g_;
};
The first idea that came to my mind is of course using a virtual class:
struct Functor {
template <typename T>
virtual T Apply(T x) = 0;
};
The unsolvable problem with this approach is that templates cannot be virtual.
Then I tried using C++ concepts. But, as stated in Specifying a concept for a type that has a member function template using Concepts Lite and
C++ Concepts: Can I define a concept that is itself a template? it is not possible to have a "templated concept".
Finally I have stumbled upon How to achieve "virtual template function" in C++ and therefore I came up with the following possible implementation:
struct Functor {
template <typename T>
T Apply(const T& x); // No more virtual!!!
};
// ... Identity and Sum declarations properly inheriting from Functor ...
template <typename T>
T Functor::Apply(T x) {
if (Identity* specialized =
dynamic_cast<Identity*>(this)) {
return specialized->Apply(x);
} else if (const Sum* specialized =
dynamic_cast<const Sum*>(this)) {
return specialized->Apply(x);
} else ...
}
Even though this is compiling, it's not the best solution. The main issues are: performance and code repetition.
The performance issue comes from the fact that each time Apply is called on a Functor the long if clause inside Functor::Apply must be resolved. This is a big problem as Functor can be deeply nested (so calling Apply may result in multiple call to Functor::Apply). The "code repetition" issue is quite self evident as each time I want to define a new Functor I have also to modify Functor::Apply adding a new if clause.
What I am asking here is whether there is a proper (cleaner) way to define a Functor interface/concept that makes possible creating classes like Sum.
C++ concepts and heavy template metaprogramming is accepted.
p.s. All the code snippets have been kept as simple as possible on purpose. Avoid suggesting to use class instead of struct or to add const identifiers or to use unique pointers, it's not the point of this question.
Most of the (best) solutions I can think of unfortunately require that you adopt some fairly complex methodologies. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course, but it can make things confusing as you move forward with designing a program. For that reason, I'd probably suggest something a little more straight-forward:
template <typename F, typename G>
class Sum {
public:
Sum(F& f, G& g) :
f_(f),
g_(g) {}
template <typename T>
inline T Apply(T x) { return f_.Apply(x) + g_.Apply(x); }
private:
F& f_;
G& g_;
};
/*
For every class like the above, you may want to define an
easy-to-use generating function to simplify instantiations:
*/
template <typename F, typename G>
inline Sum<F, G> MakeSum(F& f, G& g)
{
return Sum<F, G>(f, g);
}
#include <cmath>
struct SquareRoot {
template <typename T>
inline T Apply(T x)
{
return std::sqrt(x);
}
};
struct Triple {
template <typename T>
inline T Apply(T x)
{
return T(3) * x;
}
};
// Example:
#include <iostream>
int main(void)
{
using namespace std;
SquareRoot square_root;
Triple triple;
// For g++, don't forget to compile with -std=c++1z
auto sum = MakeSum(square_root, triple);
cout << sum.Apply(1024) << endl;
}
Granted, it isn't as powerful as other techniques, but it may be a good starting point nonetheless.
Related
I've been using C# so long, I have a couple of questions about function templates in C++.
template <typename T>
T max(T x, T y)
{
return (x > y) ? x : y;
}
Why do some examples use typename and other examples use class in the template parameter declaration? What is the difference?
Is there any way to restrict T to a particular type, or to a type that derives from a particular type?
Is there any way for a class to have two methods with the same name, except one is templated and the other is not?
UPDATE:
I appreciate all the answers, but several of them contain examples that I won't compile when I try to apply them to my code.
To clarify question 3, I have the following method:
template<typename T>
std::unique_ptr<T> ExecuteSqlQuery(LPCTSTR pszSqlQuery, UINT nOpenType = AFX_DB_USE_DEFAULT_TYPE);
I would like to declare a variation of this that uses CRecordset as T, so that either of the following statements would be valid:
auto result = db.ExecuteSqlQuery<CCustomerRecordset>(L"SELECT ...");
auto result = db.ExecuteSqlQuery(L"SELECT ...");
Why do some examples use typename and other examples use class in the template parameter declaration? What is the difference?
There is no difference between the two in the template parameter declaration, however they both have additional separate meanings in other contexts. E.g. typename is used to mark dependent names as type names and class is used to introduce a class declaration.
Is there any way to restrict T to a particular type, or a type that derives from a particular type?
Yes, one way is to rely on SFINAE to discard instantiations of types satisfying some condition, often facilitated by std::enable_if, e.g. (using C++14):
template<typename T, typename = std::enable_if_t<std::is_base_of_v<SomeBaseClass, T>>
T max(T x, T y)
{
return (x > y) ? x : y;
}
In the upcoming C++20, there will be support for Concepts, which allow one to write
template<std::DerivedFrom<SomeBaseClass> T>
T max(T x, T y)
{
return (x > y) ? x : y;
}
Is there any way for a class to have two methods with the same name, except one is templated and the other is not?
Yes, this is possible. In overload resolution, if both candidates would be equally well matching, the non-templated one will be preferred.
In this particular context both class and typename mean exaclty the same, there is no difference. class is just a bit shorter :-).
Until C++20 we could try and restrict template arguments using sophisticated template metaprogramming in conjunction with SFINAE technique. Basically, it makes template instantiation fail if the argument does not satisfy some condition. While it's very powerfull approach, it has its drawbacks: increased compile times and very long and unclear error messages.
In C++20 we have a new language feature named concepts, which is aimed to do exactly the same in a simple and straightforward way.
Yes, a function template can be overloaded with a regular function. If the both match, the regular function will be chosen. Note however that in general template overload resolution is quite complicated topic.
Why do some examples use typename and other examples use class in the template parameter declaration? What is the difference?
Historically,
Only typename was allowed for simple template, and class should be used for template template parameter:
template <template <typename> class C> void foo();
with usage such as
foo<std::unique_ptr>();
There are now (C++17) interchangeable in those contexts.
Is there any way to restrict T to a particular type, or to a type that derives from a particular type?
You might do that with SFINAE (which has several syntaxes), and in C++20 with Concepts.
template <typename T>
std::enable_if_t<some_trait<T>::value> foo();
Is there any way for a class to have two methods with the same name, except one is templated and the other is not?
Yes you might have several overloads that way
template <template <class> typename C> void foo();
template <int> void foo();
void foo();
or more simply
template <typename T> void foo(T); // #1
void foo(int); // #2
// Note that foo<int> (#1 with T = int) is different than foo (#2)
Old school C++ used 'class', but we now use 'typename'. You can still use class, but typename is recommended.
Yes, you can restrict types via specialisation..
template<typename T> T foo(T x); //< no implementation in the generic case
template<> T foo<float>(T x) { return x; } //< float is allowed
template<> T foo<double>(T x) { return x; } //< double is allowed
And you can handle derived types as well (and there are a few ways to do this)
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
struct Cow {};
template<typename T>
struct Moo
{
// default to false
template<bool valid = std::is_base_of<Cow, T>::value>
static void moo()
{
std::cout << "No moo for you!" << std::endl;
}
// moo if T is a cow
template<>
static void moo<true>()
{
std::cout << "Mooooo!" << std::endl;
}
};
struct AberdeenAngus : public Cow {};
struct Sheep {};
int main()
{
Moo<AberdeenAngus>::moo();
Moo<Sheep>::moo();
return 0;
}
Yes.
class Foo
{
public:
template<typename T>
T thing(T a) { return a; } //< template
float thing(float a) { return a * 5.0f; } //< function overload
};
I am writing a class designed to shoot random 3D vectors, but I use several geometric libraries in my projects (one included in the 3D simulation, one included in the analysis framework, one which is not included in a more-than-1-GB framework...). Each of these libraries has its own vector definition, with different names for the same method, such has getX(), GetX(), Get(0)... to get the first Cartesian coordinate. But sometimes a common naming convention has been adopted and some method names are the same across two or more libraries.
Of course I want to use this code for any of these vectors, so I implemented a template class. The problem is the following: how do I adapt my code to all these method names, without specializing my class for each implementation (some share the same method names) ?
I managed to write a class using a method or another, now I would like to generalize to any number of method. Something which says: "If you have method 1, use this implementation, if you have method 2, use this other one,... and if you have none, then compilation error".
Currently the class looks like (reduced to the part shooting a random direction):
// First some templates to test the presence of some methods
namespace detail_rand {
// test if a class contains the "setRThetaPhi" method
template<class T>
static auto test_setRThetaPhi(int) ->
decltype(void(std::declval<T>().setRThetaPhi(0.,0.,0.)),
std::true_type{});
template<class T>
static auto test_setRThetaPhi(float)->std::false_type;
}
// true_type if the class contains the "setRThetaPhi" method
template<class T>
struct has_setRThetaPhi : decltype(detail_rand::test_setRThetaPhi<T>(0)) {};
// The actual class
template<class vector>
class Random
{
// everything is static for easy use, might change later
private:
Random() = delete;
Random(Random&) = delete;
// the distribution, random generator and its seed
static decltype(std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now().time_since_epoch().count()) theSeed;
static std::default_random_engine theGenerator;
static std::uniform_real_distribution<double> uniform_real_distro;
// Shoot a direction, the actual implementation is at the end of the file
private: // the different implementations
static const vector Dir_impl(std::true_type const &);
static const vector Dir_impl(std::false_type const &);
public: // the wrapper around the implementations
inline static const vector Direction() {
return Dir_impl(has_setRThetaPhi<vector>());
}
};
/// initialisation of members (static but template so in header)
// the seed is not of cryptographic quality but here it's not relevant
template<class vector>
decltype(std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now().time_since_epoch().count())
Random<vector>::theSeed =
std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now().time_since_epoch().count();
template<class vector>
std::default_random_engine Random<vector>::theGenerator(theSeed);
template<class vector>
std::uniform_real_distribution<double> Random<vector>::uniform_real_distro(0.,1.);
/// Implementation of method depending on the actual type of vector
// Here I use the "setRThetaPhi" method
template<class vector>
const vector Random<vector>::Dir_impl(std::true_type const &)
{
vector v;
v.setRThetaPhi(1.,
std::acos(1.-2.*uniform_real_distro(theGenerator)),
TwoPi()*uniform_real_distro(theGenerator));
return std::move(v);
}
// Here I use as a default the "SetMagThetaPhi" method
// but I would like to test before if I really have this method,
// and define a default implementation ending in a compilation error
// (through static_assert probably)
template<class vector>
const vector Random<vector>::Dir_impl(std::false_type const &)
{
vector v;
v.SetMagThetaPhi(1.,
std::acos(1.-2.*uniform_real_distro(theGenerator)),
TwoPi()*uniform_real_distro(theGenerator));
return std::move(v);
}
Something which says: "If you have method 1, use this implementation, if you have method 2, use this other one,... and if you have none, then compilation error".
I wrote an article that explains how to implement exactly what you need in C++11, C++14 and C++17: "checking expression validity in-place with C++17".
I will synthesize the C++11 and C++14 solutions below - you can use them to normalize all the interfaces you're dealing with by wrapping them inside a single "common" one. You can then implement your algorithms on the "common" interface.
Assume that you have:
struct Cat { void meow() const; };
struct Dog { void bark() const; };
And you want to create a function template make_noise(const T& x) that calls x.meow() if valid, otherwise x.bark() if valid, otherwise produces a compiler error.
In C++11, you can use enable_if and the detection idiom.
You will need to create a type trait for every member you wish to check the existence of. Example:
template <typename, typename = void>
struct has_meow : std::false_type { };
template <typename T>
struct has_meow<T, void_t<decltype(std::declval<T>().meow())>>
: std::true_type { };
Here's an usage example using enable_if and trailing return types - this technique makes use of expression SFINAE.
template <typename T>
auto make_noise(const T& x)
-> typename std::enable_if<has_meow<T>{}>::type
{
x.meow();
}
template <typename T>
auto make_noise(const T& x)
-> typename std::enable_if<has_bark<T>{}>::type
{
x.bark();
}
In C++14, you can use generic lambdas and an implementation of static_if (here's a talk I gave at CppCon 2016 about a possible one) to perform the check with an imperative-like syntax.
You need a few utilities:
// Type trait that checks if a particular function object can be
// called with a particular set of arguments.
template <typename, typename = void>
struct is_callable : std::false_type { };
template <typename TF, class... Ts>
struct is_callable<TF(Ts...),
void_t<decltype(std::declval<TF>()(std::declval<Ts>()...))>>
: std::true_type { };
// Wrapper around `is_callable`.
template <typename TF>
struct validity_checker
{
template <typename... Ts>
constexpr auto operator()(Ts&&...) const
{
return is_callable<TF(Ts...)>{};
}
};
// Creates `validity_checker` by deducing `TF`.
template <typename TF>
constexpr auto is_valid(TF)
{
return validity_checker<TF>{};
}
After that, you can perform all of your checks inside a single overload of make_noise:
template <typename T>
auto make_noise(const T& x)
{
auto has_meow = is_valid([](auto&& x) -> decltype(x.meow()){ });
auto has_bark = is_valid([](auto&& x) -> decltype(x.bark()){ });
static_if(has_meow(x))
.then([&x](auto)
{
x.meow();
})
.else_if(has_bark(x))
.then([&x](auto)
{
x.bark();
})
.else_([](auto)
{
// Produce a compiler-error.
struct cannot_meow_or_bark;
cannot_meow_or_bark{};
})(dummy{});
}
Some macro black magic and if constexpr allow you to write this in C++17:
template <typename T>
auto make_noise(const T& x)
{
if constexpr(IS_VALID(T)(_0.meow()))
{
x.meow();
}
else if constexpr(IS_VALID(T)(_0.bark()))
{
x.bark();
}
else
{
struct cannot_meow_or_bark;
cannot_meow_or_bark{};
}
}
You could solve this by introducing your own names for the operations. Do this by creating a trait class and specialising it for each of the libraries. Something like this:
template <class Vector>
struct VectorTraits;
template <>
struct VectorTraits<Lib1::Vector>
{
static auto getX(const Lib1::Vector &v) { return v.GetX(); }
// ... etc.
};
template <>
struct VectorTraits<Lib2::Vector>
{
static auto getX(const Lib2::Vector &v) { return v.Get(0); }
// ... etc.
};
//Usage:
template <class vector>
auto norm2(const vector &v)
{
using V = VectorTraits<vector>;
return V::getX(v) * V::getX(v) + V::getY(v) + V::getY(v);
}
If you want static assertions for the unsupported operations, you can put them into the unspecialised template:
template <class T>
struct False : std::false_type {};
template <class Vector>
struct VectorTraits
{
static void getX(const Vector &)
{
static_assert(False<Vector>::value, "This type does not support getting x");
}
};
Consider the following (invalid) code sample:
// a: base template for function with only one parameter
template<typename T>
void f(T t) { }
// b: base tempalte for function with two parameters
template<typename T1, typename T2>
void f(T1 t1, T2 t2) { }
// c: specialization of a for T = int
template<>
void f<int>(int i) { }
// d: specialization for b with T1 = int - INVALID
template<typename T2>
void f<int, T2>(int i, T2 t2) { }
int main() {
f(true); // should call a
f(true, false); // should call b
f(1); // should call c
f(1, false); // should call d
}
I've read this walk-through on why, in general, partial function template specializations won't work, and I think I understand the basic reasoning: there are cases where function template specializations and overloading would make certain calls ambiguous (there are good examples in the article).
However, is there a reason why this specific example wouldn't work, other than "the standard says it shouldn't"? Does anything change if I can guarantee (e.g. with a static_assert) that the base template is never instantiated? Is there any other way to achieve the same effect?
What I actually want to achieve is to create an extendable factory method
template<typename T>
T create();
which also has a few overloads taking input parameters, e.g.
template<typename T, typename TIn>
T create(TIn in);
template<typename T, typename TIn1, typename TIn2>
T create(TIn1 in1, TIn2 in2);
In order to ensure that all necessary factory methods are present, I use static_assert in the function base templates, so that a compiler error is generated if the create method is called with template arguments for which no specialization has been provided.
I want these to be function templates rather than class templates because there will be quite a lot of them, and they will all use input from the same struct hierarchy, so instantiating 10 factories instead of one comes with some overhead that I'd like to avoid (not considering the fact that the code gets much easier to understand this way, if I can just get it to work...).
Is there a way to get around the problem outlined in the first half of this post, in order to achieve what I've tried to get at with the second half?
In response to iavr:
I could do this with plain overloading, which would (given the templates above) give something like
template<typename TIn2>
A create(bool, TIn2);
template<typename TIn2>
A create(int, TIn2);
if I need two different partial specializations with T = A, TIn1 specified and TIn2 still unspecified. This is a problem, since I have some cases (which are really text-book cases for meta-programming and templates) where I know that, for example, one of the arguments will be a std::string, and the other will be of some type that has a property fields and a property grids, which are of types std::vector<field> and std::vector<grid> respectively. I don't know all the types that will ever be supplied as the second argument - I know for sure that there will be more of them than the ones I currently have implemented - but the implementation of the method will be exactly the same.
While writing up this update, I think I've figured out a way to redesign the implementations so that there is no need for the partial specialization - basically, I do the following to cover the case outlined above:
template<>
A create<A, std::vector<field>, std::vector<grid>>(std::vector<field> fs, std::vector<grid> gs);
and then I have to change the calling signature slightly, but that's OK.
I share your concerns that maybe in this particular case there would be no problem having function template partial specializations, but then again, that's the way it is, so what would be your problem using plain overloading?
// a: base template for function with only one parameter
template<typename T>
void f(T t) { }
// b: base template for function with two parameters
template<typename T1, typename T2>
void f(T1 t1, T2 t2) { }
// c: specialization of a for T = int
void f(int i) { }
// d: specialization for b with T1 = int
template<typename T2>
void f(int i, T2 t2) { }
This also takes less typing and I get this is why you don't want to use function objects (which would have partial specialization).
Here is a simple workaround using a class template specialization:
template <typename, typename...>
struct Creator;
template <typename T, typename TIn>
struct Creator<T, TIn>
{
T call(TIn in)
{
// ...
}
};
template<typename T, typename TIn1, typename TIn2>
struct Creator<T, TIn1, TIn2>
{
T call(TIn1 in1, TIn2 in2)
{
// ...
}
};
template <typename R, typename... Arguments>
R Create(Arguments&&... arguments)
{
return Creator<R, Arguments...>::call(std::forward<Arguments>(arguments)...);
}
If you don't want overloading, and want to be able to specialize from a separate file, then I think you should base it on the solution on the link from your question. It involves making a static method on a class that you specialize. From my reading of the question, you're only interested in specializing on the T, not on the number of arguments, which you intend to forward. In C++11, you can do the following:
#include <iostream>
#include <utility>
using namespace std;
template<typename T>
struct factory_impl;
// Left unspecified for now (which causes compliation failure if
// not later specialized
template<typename T, typename... Args>
T create(Args&&... args)
{
return factory_impl<T>::create(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
// Note, this can be specified in a header in another translation
// unit. The only requirement is that the specialization
// be defined prior to calling create with the correct value
// of T
template<>
struct factory_impl<int>
{
// int can be constructed with 0 arguments or 1 argument
static int create(int src = 0)
{
return src;
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
int i = create<int>();
int j = create<int>(5);
// double d = create<double>(); // Fails to compile
std::cout << i << " " << j << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Live example http://ideone.com/7a3uRZ
Edit: In response to your question, you could also make create a member function of a class, and pass along some of that data with the call or take action before or after
struct MyFactory
{
template<typename T, typename... Args>
T create(Args&&... args)
{
T ret = factory_impl<T>::create(data, std::forward<Args>(args)...);
// do something with ret
return ret;
}
Foo data; // Example
};
In C++ if you want to partially specialize a single method in a template class you have to specialize the whole class (as stated for example in Template specialization of a single method from templated class with multiple template parameters)
This however becomes tiresome in bigger template classes with multiple template parameters, when each of them influences a single function. With N parameters you need to specialize the class 2^N times!
However, with the C++11 I think there might a more elegant solution, but I am not sure how to approach it. Perhaps somehow with enable_if? Any ideas?
In addition to the inheritance-based solution proposed by Torsten, you could use std::enable_if and default function template parameters to enable/disable certain specializations of the function.
For example:
template<typename T>
struct comparer
{
template<typename U = T ,
typename std::enable_if<std::is_floating_point<U>::value>::type* = nullptr>
bool operator()( U lhs , U rhs )
{
return /* floating-point precision aware comparison */;
}
template<typename U = T ,
typename std::enable_if<!std::is_floating_point<U>::value>::type* = nullptr>
bool operator()( U lhs , U rhs )
{
return lhs == rhs;
}
};
We take advantage of SFINAE to disable/enable the different "specializations" of the function depending on the template parameter. Because SFINAE can only depend on function parameters, not class parameters, we need an optional template parameter for the function, which takes the parameter of the class.
I prefer this solution over the inheritance based because:
It requires less typing. Less typing probably leads to less errors.
All specializations are written inside the class. This way to write the specializations holds all of the specializations inside the original class , and make the specializations look like function overloads, instead of tricky template based code.
But with compilers which have not implemented optional function template parameters (Like MSVC in VS2012) this solution does not work, and you should use the inheritance-based solution.
EDIT: You could ride over the non-implemented-default-function-template-parameters wrapping the template function with other function which delegates the work:
template<typename T>
struct foo
{
private:
template<typename U>
void f()
{
...
}
public:
void g()
{
f<T>();
}
};
Of course the compiler can easily inline g() throwing away the wrapping call, so there is no performance hit on this alternative.
One solution would be to forward from the function, you want to overload to some implementation that depends on the classes template arguments:
template < typename T >
struct foo {
void f();
};
template < typename T >
struct f_impl {
static void impl()
{
// default implementation
}
};
template <>
struct f_impl<int> {
static void impl()
{
// special int implementation
}
};
template < typename T >
void foo< T >::f()
{
f_impl< T >::impl();
}
Or just use private functions, call them with the template parameter and overload them.
template < typename T >
class foo {
public:
void f()
{
impl(T());
}
private:
template < typename G >
void impl( const G& );
void impl( int );
};
Or if it's really just one special situation with a very special type, just query for that type in the implementation.
With enable_if:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename T>
class A {
private:
template <typename U>
static typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, char>::value, char>::type
g() {
std::cout << "char\n";
return char();
}
template <typename U>
static typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, int>::value, int>::type
g() {
std::cout << "int\n";
return int();
}
public:
static T f() { return g<T>(); }
};
int main(void)
{
A<char>::f();
A<int>::f();
// error: no matching function for call to ‘A<double>::g()’
// A<double>::f();
return 0;
}
Tag dispatching is often the clean way to do this.
In your base method, use a traits class to determine what sub version of the method you want to call. This generates a type (called a tag) that describes the result of the decision.
Then perfect forward to that implememtation sub version passing an instance of the tag type. Overload resolution kicks in, and only the implememtation you want gets instantiated and called.
Overload resolution based on a parameter type is a much less insane way of handling the dispatch, as enable_if is fragile, complex at point of use, gets really complex if you have 3+ overloads, and there are strange corner cases that can surprise you with wonderful compilation errors.
Maybe i'm wrong but chosen best anwser provided by Manu343726 has an error and won't compile. Both operator overloads have the same signature. Consider best anwser in question std::enable_if : parameter vs template parameter
P.S. i would put a comment, but not enough reputation, sorry
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is it possible to write a C++ template to check for a function's existence?
say there are 2 classes:
struct A{ int GetInt(){ return 10; } };
struct B{ int m; };
I want to use object of type A or B in following function
tempate< typename T >
int GetInt( const T & t )
{
//if it's A, I'll call: return t.GetInt();
//if its' B, I'll call: return t.m;
}
Now, because there are whole bunch of classes, some contain GetInt(), some don't, I don't want to write specialization for each type, I only want to distinguish them by 'containing GetInt() or not in compile time', how should I do this ?
Substitution Failure Is Not An Error, or more compactly, SFINAE
But in your particular case, you don't need SFINAE, virtual members, or anything fancy like that.
You just need an ordinary overloaded function.
int GetInt(A& t) { return t.GetInt(); }
int GetInt(const B& t) { return t.m; }
If there's code that needs to be shared between the different versions, refactor it so that there's a template that calls an overloaded inline function, all type-specific behavior is in the inline function, and all shared behavior is in the template.
For your "I have many many classes" need, SFINAE would look more or less like this:
template<typename T>
int GetInt(const T& t, int (T::*extra)() const = &T::GetInt)
{
return t.GetInt();
}
template<typename T>
auto GetInt(const T& t) -> decltype(t.m)
{
return t.m;
}
EDIT: The reality of SFINAE is much uglier, at least until C++0x comes around. In fact it starts looking just as bad as GMan's answer.
struct A{ int GetInt() const { return 10; } };
struct B{ int m; };
template<typename T, int (T::*extra)() const>
struct has_mfunc
{
typedef int type;
};
template<typename T>
typename has_mfunc<T, &T::GetInt>::type GetInt(const T& t)
{
return t.GetInt();
}
template<typename T, typename U, U (T::*extra)>
struct has_field
{
typedef U type;
};
template<typename T>
typename has_field<T, int, &T::m>::type GetInt(const T& t)
{
return t.m;
}
int main(void)
{
A a;
B b;
b.m = 5;
return GetInt(a) + GetInt(b);
}
Stealing from here, and assuming you fix your code so GetInt is const, we get:
HAS_MEM_FUNC(GetInt, has_GetInt);
template <bool B>
struct bool_type
{
static const bool value = B;
};
typedef bool_type<true> true_type;
typedef bool_type<false> false_type;
namespace detail
{
template <typename T>
int get_int(const T& pX, true_type)
{
return pX.GetInt();
}
template <typename T>
int get_int(const T& pX, false_type)
{
return pX.m;
}
}
template <typename T>
int get_int(const T& pX)
{
return detail::get_int(pX,
has_GetInt<T, int (T::*)() const>::value);
}
This is pretty awful design though. You should fix the problem rather than apply a patch.
Technically it just involves a few template arcana, which you can find by googling e.g. has_member or the like. Off the cuff, in the detection code, if I were to write such, I'd just sort of fake-derive from the class in question, and check size of derived class' member.
However, don't do that.
What else to do depends. But it seems like your classes conform to two different "schemas", so to speak, without those schemas being available via the type system (like, it seems the classes don't derive from two base classes A and B). Then one option is to introduce a traits template that tells you wrappers whether the template param T is schema A or B. Specialize the traits for each relevant class that differs from the default. Choose the default so as to minimize work.
Cheers & hth.,
This is exactly what inheritance is for. You can easily use use dynamic_cast for is type of questions at runtime. For example you can define an abstract base class called HasGetInt and derive the classes that need that function from it and not reinvent the wheel.