Hi I am not sure that this is possible since but I thought of asking since there might be better ways of achieving something similar that I am not aware of.
For simplicity lets just consider that VectorT is
template<class T>
class VectorT: private std::vector<T>`
An attempt to what I wanted to have is something along the lines of.
namespace detail
{
template<class SmartPtr>
class MyClassVectorBase : public VectorT<SmartPtr>
{
public:
MyClassVectorBase() = default;
// all common functions of MyVectorView and MyVector
};
}
using MyClassVectorView = detail::MyClassVectorBase<nonstd::observer_ptr<SomeClass>>;
class MyVector : public detail::MyClassVectorBase<std::unique_ptr<SomeClass>>
{
// only functions related to the actual owner vector
};
What I am hoping is that MyClassVectorBase can be templated only on the smart pointer type and only accept SomeClass.
I thought that it might be possible with a specialization but I got no idea what the syntax for something like that would be
template<class T, class SmartPtr>
class MyClassVectorBase : public VectorT<SmartPtr<T>>
{
};
template<SomeClass T, typename SmartPtr>
class MyClassVectorBase : public VectorT<SmartPtr<T>>
{
};
Is something like that even possible ?
Edited:
Ok let me try to explain this and the logic behind it. I need to have a VectorT of Foo objects. Only Foo and nothing else.
In one case the class will be the owner of the objects and have a few extra functions.
Since it is the owner it will be class MyClassVector : public VectorT<std::unique_ptr<Foo>>
Then I have to somehow operate on these objects but these wont be owned.
The ownership is single and will always outlive the object that I will operate on so no need for shared_ptr.
So Then I guess my class will be a "View class" MyClassVectorView : public VectorT<std::observer_ptr<Foo>>
Instead of observer_ptr it could as well be say raw ptr but the intent is better with it.
Now MyClassVectorView will have all identical functions with MyClassVector which is why I think that I would be inheriting from it.
To do so I need to have a base class that will accept both unique_ptr and observer_ptr.
Then I can avoid duplication so long as I can do MyClassVector : public MyClassVectorView<std::unique_ptr<Foo>>
The alterantive would be have one class and detect with SFINAE if the template parameter is a unique_ptr and then enable the extra functions. This would avoid the extra inheritance.
Not sure about what you want to obtain but I suspect that you need template template parameters.
I suppose you could declare (but not define) MyClassVectorBase as receiving a single template typename parameter
template <typename>
class MyClassVectorBase;
and next define a specialization template-template based; something like
template <template<typename...> class SmartPtr, typename Foo>
class MyClassVectorBase<SmartPtr<Foo>> : public VectorT<SmartPtr<Foo>>
{
public:
MyClassVectorBase() = default;
void doSomething(){}
void doSomething2(){}
};
If Foo isn't a template parameter, but is the Foo struct, you can write
template <template<typename...> class SmartPtr>
class MyClassVectorBase<SmartPtr<Foo>> : public VectorT<SmartPtr<Foo>>
{
public:
MyClassVectorBase() = default;
void doSomething(){}
void doSomething2(){}
};
Your example modified and integrated (with a main() and a dummy observer_ptr)
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
namespace nonstd
{
template <typename T>
struct observer_ptr
{ };
}
template <class T>
class VectorT
{
public:
// expose nececssary functions
private :
std::vector<T> container_;
};
struct Foo{
double x;
};
template <typename>
class MyClassVectorBase;
// this class should only accept smart pointers of Foo
template <template<typename...> class SmartPtr, typename Foo>
class MyClassVectorBase<SmartPtr<Foo>> : public VectorT<SmartPtr<Foo>>
{
public:
MyClassVectorBase() = default;
void doSomething(){}
void doSomething2(){}
};
using MyClassVectorView = MyClassVectorBase<nonstd::observer_ptr<Foo>>;
class MyVector : public MyClassVectorBase<std::unique_ptr<Foo>>
{
// function only for this class but still inheriting all MyClassVectorBase stuff
};
int main ()
{
}
Related
I am trying to inherit the std::vector class template into my membvec class template as public. And I want to use it as e.g. say membvec<float> mymemb(10) with the intention of creating my membvec variable mymemb containing 10 elements.
But I can't figure out how to write the templatised declaration of the public inheritance. What I am doing is the following, but all in vain.
template <typename T, template <typename T> class std::vector = std::vector<T>>
//error above: expected '>' before '::' token
class membvec: public std::vector<T>
{
const membvec<T> operator-() const; // sorry the previous version was a typo
//error above: wrong number of template arguments (1, should be 2)
...
};
I think you're looking for something like the below, but seriously don't do it. If you ever pass your class as its parent std::vector, there is no virtual interface to allow your class to provide any benefit whatsoever. And if you don't need to substitute for a std::vector then there's no need to inherit from it. Prefer free function algorithms or containing the std::vector as a member in your class instead.
#include <vector>
template <typename T>
class membvec: public std::vector<T>
{
// Don't need <T> in class scope, must return by value.
membvec operator+() const;
};
int main()
{
membvec<int> foo;
}
Perhaps you want something like this:
#include <vector>
template <typename T, template <typename T, class Allocator> class Vec = std::vector>
class membvec: public Vec<T, std::allocator<T>>
{
public:
// This is the signature in your question, but it's questionable.
const membvec<T, Vec> &operator+(int x) const
{
// You obviously want to change this.
return *this;
}
};
You can then use it regularly:
int main()
{
membvec<char> foo;
foo + 3;
}
This question is considering explicit instanciation of template classes.
Consider a template class B<T> derived from another template class A<T>. I want to explicitly instanicate B<T> because its methods are to be called from dynamic linking, so the methods must be instanciated although they are not called in the code itself. Of course, also methods inherited from A<T> will be called, so they must be instanciated as well.
It seems that C++ does NOT instanciate base classes when explicitly instanciating a template class, as asked in this question:
Do Explicit Instantiations of C++ Class Templates Instantiate Dependent Base Classes?
Example:
template<typename T>
class A{ void foo(){...} };
template<typename T>
class B : public A<T> {}
template class B<int>; // This will NOT instanciate A<int>::foo()!!!
Of course, I also need to instanciate all base classes. However, I don't want to burden the client code with this because the class hierarchy may be very deep. Consider a class hierarchy involving 10 or more template classes. The client should not be urged to write 10 explicit template instanciations. This is not only a lot of writing; it will also break when I introduce changes to the class hierarchy.
Instead, I want to achieve somehow that whenever B<T> is instanciated, then so are all its base classes. I tried simply instanciating the base class in B itself like this:
template<typename T>
class B : public A<T> {
template class A<T>; // Does not compile!
}
But this does not compile. Are there other ways that could achive this?
Maybe not elegant but at least workable: provide a macro to instantiate the template and require the user to use the macro in stead of manual instantiation:
// in A.hpp
#define INSTANTIATE_A(T) template class A<T>;
// in B.hpp
#define INSTANTIATE_B(T) \
INSTANTIATE_A(T) \
template class B<T>;
And if you prefer "polluting" the class interface to enforcing the use of an instantiation macro: add a protected member that calls all other member functions of the template and the version in the base class. Example:
template<typename T>
class A
{
void foo() {...}
protected:
void instantiate() { foo(); }
};
template<typename T>
class B : public A<T>
{
void bar() {...}
protected:
void instantiate() { A<T>::instantiate(); bar(); }
};
template class B<int>; // Now works as expected
Update:
Alternative to the second solution: take the function pointer of all members and save them to a temporary variable:
template<typename T>
class A
{
void foo() {...}
protected:
void instantiate() { void (A::*p)() = &A::foo; }
};
template<typename T>
class B : public A<T>
{
void bar() {...}
protected:
void instantiate() { A<T>::instantiate(); void (B::*p)() = &B::foo; }
};
I want to do:
template <class Derived=BattleData>
class BattleData : public BattleCommandManager<Derived> {
};
But obviously BattleData isn't declared, so I tried a forward declaration:
template <class T> class BattleData;
template <class Derived=BattleData>
class BattleData : public BattleCommandManager<Derived> {
};
But then I get
error: "wrong number of template parameter on the second line, with
BattleData.
I really fail to see a solution to this!
Edit:
The reason I'm doing this is because I want to be able to use BattleData directly as a class, but I also want to be able to subclass it in which case I have to specify the derived class as the second template parameter.
For example let's say the corpus of my BattleData class is :
template <class Derived> class BattleData: public BaseClass<Derived> {
void foo1(){};
void foo2(){};
void foo3(){};
}
And I have a subclass
template class SubBattleData: public BattleData<SubBattleData> {
void foo1(){};
}
I would still want, in some cases, to be able to write code like this:
BattleData *x = new BattleData(...);
I can't even do the following without being able to use default arguments:
BattleData<BattleData> *x = new BattleData<BattleData>(...);
On one side, the reason functions aren't virtualized in the BattleData class is the benefit of having no virtual function. The other reason it doesn't work for me is that one of the parent CRTP classes invokes functions only if they're present in the derived type (using decltype(Derived::function) and enable-if like structures), and fall back to default behavior otherwise. Since there can be a great deal of those functions with a particular design pattern (like a CRTP that reads a protocol with many different cases and processes a case a particular way only if the derived class specify the corresponding function, otherwise just transfer it without processing).
So those functions can be present in SubBattleData and not BattleData, but both classes would work fine if instantiated, yet it's impossible to instantiate BattleData.
You should be able to accomplish your original design goals more naturally than the above. You can't use the actual Derived typename as the default clearly because what you're really trying to write is the following:
template <class Derived=BattleData <BattleData <BattleData <...>>>
class BattleData : public BattleCommandManager<Derived> {
};
You get the idea. Instead, just use a placeholder like void:
template <typename T = void>
class BattleData : public BattleCommandManager <
typename std::conditional <
std::is_same <T, void>::value,
BattleData <void>,
T
>::type>
{
};
Disclaimer: I did not compile the above.
Can't you use an Empty class for the second template parameter?
template <class T=DataContainer, class Derived=BattleData<T, Empty> >
class BattleData : public BattleCommandManager<Derived> {
};
I don't see what you are trying to do. What is wrong with
template <class T=DataContainer>
class BattleData : public BattleCommandManager< BattleData<T> > {
};
If you specify Derived to be something else than the actual derived class static polymorphism is not going to work and CRTP becomes somewhat useless anyway.
Edit: From what I have gathered this is what you want to in abstract terms:
template <class Derived>
struct Base {
void interface() {
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->implementation();
}
};
template<typename T>
struct Derived : Base<Derived> {
// dummy so we get you example
T t;
void implementation() {
std::cout << "derived" << std::endl;
}
};
struct Derived2 : public Derived<int> {
// hide implementation in Derived
// but still have Base::interface make the right call statically
void implementation() {
std::cout << "derived2" << std::endl;
}
};
There is no way I know of that you can make this work. Another
approach would be to use policy classes instead of CRTP. They are
compatible with inheritance and you can achieve similar behaviour.
template<typename Policy>
struct BattleCmdManager : public Policy {
using Policy::foo;
};
template<typename T>
struct BattleData {
// ...
protected:
void foo();
};
struct BattleData2 : public BattleData<int {
// ...
protected:
void foo();
};
Here is how I solved it:
template <class Derived> class BattleDataInh: public BaseClass<Derived> {
void foo1(){};
void foo2(){};
void foo3(){};
};
template class SubBattleData: public BattleDataInh<SubBattleData> {
void foo1(){};
};
class BattleData : public BattleDataInh<BattleData> {
};
And that way, I can add any other template parameters too. The solution was in front of my eyes the whole time but I didn't see it...
I'm wanting to invoke a specialized templated function by using a pointer to it's base type. I'm not sure if this possible so I'm open to suggestions and/or alternatives. Here is an example of my situation:
class CBase {};
class CDerivedClass : public CBase {};
template<class T>
int func<T>(T &x) { ... };
template<>
int func<CDerivedClass>(CDerivedClass &x) { ... };
I have another function that manages a list of CBase pointers and then calls the func() function.
void doStuff()
{
CBase *foo[10] = { ...... };
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
func(*foo[i]);
}
Is there a way to get the derived type, so that func(CDerivedClass &) is called?
What about Template Subclassing? This idiom allows you to use compile-time polymorphism in C++. The cost of it is higher verbosity (such as specifying the whole class hierarchy up to the current class). In your case:
template <typename TSpec> class Klass {};
template <typename TSpec> struct SpecTag {};
template <typename TSpec> class Klass<SpecTag<TSpec> > {};
template <typename TSpec>
int func(Klass<TSpec> &x) { ... };
template <typename TSpec>
int func(Klass<SpecTag<TSpec> > &x) { ... };
The "Visitor" pattern comes to the rescue in this case. It enables polymorphic behavior in an algorithm implemented outside the class. Some support code is required inside the class, but new algorithms can later be added, existing algorithms modified, etc., without affecting the class.
Alternative solution : from your example, it's obvious that you just should to use a virtual method in CBase, so you just have to define a virtual function in CBase and an overriding function in the derived class.
When having:
template <typename Super>
class Whatever : public Super
{
...
};
is it possible, to create Whatever class without deriving from something?
Is this the lighter version?
struct BlankType{};
Whatever<BlankType> w;
////////////////////////////////////////
Some background:
I have my code composed into template layers like Whatever above. So I can do:
typedef Whatever<Whenever<Wherever<>>>> MyCombinedType
actually I can not. I have to do
typedef Whatever<Whenever<Wherever<BlankType>>>> MyCombinedType
and the type becomes also BlankType.
I can not make Wherever "non-layerable", because when I would do just
typedef Whatever<Whenever<>>> MyCombinedType
the problem will appear again...
If you want to create Whatever class that is not derived from something you can simply define its specification as follows:
class BlankType {};
template<typename T = BlankType> class Whatever : public T {};
template<> class Whatever<BlankType> {};
A bit off-topic, in C++ with variadic templates you can avoid the recursive instantiation thanks to a recursive definition:
template <class ...Bases> class Whatever;
template <class B, class ...Bases>
class Whatever<B, Bases...> : public B, public Whatever<Bases...> { /* ... */ };
template <class B>
class Whatever<B> : public B { /*... */ };
template <> class Whatever<> { /* ... */ };
Now you can say Whatever<Foo, Bar, Baz> and inherit from all those. If you want to inherit also from multiply nested other instances of Whatever, you should make all the inheritances virtual.
The final specialization in my example also shows how you can specialize Whatever to not derive from anything. If you write Whatever<> x;, you have an object of a class that does not derive from anything.