I have the following api:
old_operation(stream, format, varArgs);
And I want to write an adaptor to make it possible to write the call as follows:
stream << operation(format, varArgs);
To do this I'm using a temporary object which stores references to varArgs and overload the operator<< to apply the old_operation() as follows:
template<typename ...T>
decltype(auto) storage(T&& ...t) {
return [&](auto&& f) ->decltype(auto) {
return std::forward<decltype(f)>(f)(t...);
};
}
template<typename ...T>
class Operation
{
using Storage = decltype(storage(std::declval<T>()...));
public:
template<typename ...Args>
explicit Operation(Args&& ...args) :
mArgs(storage(std::forward<Args>(args)...)) {};
template<class StreamType>
StreamType& Apply(StreamType& stream)
{
auto f = [&](auto&& ...xs)
{
old_operation(stream, std::forward<decltype(xs)>(xs)...);
}
mArgs(f);
return stream;
}
private:
Storage mArgs;
};
template<typename ...Args>
Operation<Args...> MakeOperation(Args&&... args)
{
return Operation<Args...>(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
template<class StreamType, typename ...Args>
StreamType& operator<<(StreamType& stream, Operation<Args...>&& operation)
{
return operation.Apply(stream);
}
This works great but now I need to add some using namespace declarations embedded into the operation call:
let's say I have
namespace X {namespace Y { namespace Z { int formater(double x) { return std::round(x); }}}
And I don't want to add all the namespaces for this call, so I'm doing something like:
#define OPERATION(...) \
[&]() { \
using namespace ::X:Y:Z; \
return Operation("" __VA_ARGS__); }() \
which allows me to do:
stream << OPERATION(format, formater(2.3));
The problem with the lambda is that the temporaries are being created in a different scope than the Apply() call, which is UB.
I don't know if by adding a const qualifier to mArgs it will prolong the life of the captured references as mentioned here. I'm not sure if this applies, I'm assuming they are stack-based references and that by adding the const qualifier to mArgs the qualifier is going to be applied to the captured references.
template<typename ...T>
decltype(auto) storage(T&& ...t) {
return [&](auto&& f) ->decltype(auto) {
return std::forward<decltype(f)>(f)(t...);
};
}
this is a haskell-style functor (well, a variardic one, which isn't very haskell). It takes Ts... and returns a function of type ((Ts...)->U)->U, ie that knows how to evaluate a function on the arguments you passed to it. This makes storage of type (Ts...)->( ((Ts...)->U)->U ) for a bit of algebraic fun.
I suspect your problem is that you have temporaries that you don't store. Generally not storing temporaries passed to a function, where the return value depends on the lifetime of those temporaries, results in fragile code.
If you have C++1z experimental::apply we can do this:
template<class... Ts>
decltype(auto) storage(Ts&&... ts) {
return
[tup=std::tuple<Ts...>(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...)]
(auto&& f)
->decltype(auto) mutable
{
return std::experimental::apply(decltype(f)(f), std::move(tup));
};
}
which returns a one-shot delayed call to std::apply. Apply takes a function and a tuple, and passes the arguments of the tuple to the function. It handles reference and r/lvalue-ness properly. Meanwhile, the container of the tuple makes the capture simpler, and lets us easily conditionally store rvalues while keeping lvalues as references.
I think this solves your problem, as temporaries get moved-into the tuple instead of being captured by reference, while non-temporaries are stored by reference.
There should be std::experimental::apply implementations that are better than anything I can sketch here available easily.
Related
I am trying to store lambda functions in a queue to execute them later. In order to do that, i am trying to hide the parameter pack in a lambda without losing scope so I can still access the passed arguments in an upper scope.
Sadly I cannot compile this since the parameter pack does not match the const qualifier.
I hope it is easier to understand what I am trying to accomplish by looking at the following code. (I am using c++17, not c++20).
I think I misunderstand how to properly forward the variadic parameter pack since as I do it right now, the binding reference to const will discard qualifiers.
It is sadly not an option to expect the parameters in the functional lambda to be const.
std::queue<std::function<void()>> fcts;
template<typename F >
auto push_fct(F &task) -> void {
// Do things
fcts.push(std::move(std::function<void()>(task)));
}
template<typename F, typename... A>
auto push_fct(F& task , A&... args) -> void {
push_fct( [task, args...] { task(args...);});
}
auto main() -> int {
auto functional = [&](class_a & a, class_b & b) {
a.memberFct();
b.memberFunction(123);
}
class_a instance_a;
class_b instance_b;
push_fct(functional, instance_a, instance_b);
return 0;
}
What happens is, here [task, args...] the references are lost; task, args... are captured by value, which, in a non-mutable lambda additionally become const, which subsequently can't bind to non-const references in the call to [&](class_a & a, class_b & b).
You can capture the references by reference. Don't worry about their lifetime - the references are collapsed, and the original ones will be captured (source).
template<typename F>
auto push_fct(F&& task) -> void {
// Do things
fcts.emplace(std::forward<F>(task));
}
template<typename F, typename... A>
auto push_fct(F& task, A&... args) -> void {
push_fct([&task, &args...]{ task(args...); });
}
I recently came across a situation where I ended up with a large number of nested lambdas to build asynchronous computation chains.
template <typename F>
struct node : F
{
node(F&& f) : F{std::move(f)}
{
}
template <typename FThen>
auto then(FThen&& f_then)
{
return ::node{[p = std::move(*this), t = std::move(f_then)]()
{
}};
}
};
int main()
{
auto f = node{[]{ }}.then([]{ }).then([]{ });
return sizeof(f);
}
All the objects I capture in my the lambdas are empty, yet the size of the final object is greater than one: example on gcc.godbolt.org.
If I change the lambda inside node</* ... */>::then to a function object with explicit EBO, the size of the final object becomes one.
template <typename P, typename T>
struct node_lambda : P, T
{
node_lambda(P&& p, T&& t) : P{std::move(p)}, T{std::move(t)}
{
}
void operator()()
{
}
};
template <typename FThen>
auto node</* ... */>::then(FThen&& f_then)
{
return ::node{node_lambda{std::move(*this), std::move(f_then)}};
}
Live example on gcc.godbolt.org
I find this really annoying because I'm forced to either:
Write a lot of boilerplate code that is roughly equivalent to the lambda.
Pay an additional memory cost due to the fact that something like EBO doesn't apply to lambda captures.
Is there anything in the Standard that explicitly forces empty lambda captures to take additional space? If so, why?
From expr.prim.lambda.capture:
For each entity captured by copy, an unnamed non-static data member is declared in the closure type.
While the lambdas here have no capture:
auto f = node{[]{ }}.then([]{ }).then([]{ });
and hence have no unnamed non-static data members, and hence are empty, that's not what then() actually uses. It uses this:
return ::node{[p = std::move(*this), t = std::move(f_then)](){}};
that lambda captures t and p by copy, and hence has two unnamed non-static data members. Each .then() adds another member variable, even if each one is empty, hence the size of the node keeps going up.
Or in other words, the empty base optimization only applies to bases, and capture for lambdas doesn't create bases, it creates non-static data members.
The other answers have the cause, so I will not re-iterate. I will just add that I was able to turn your example into an inheritance based one without too much boilerplate. Since you do public inheritance in the OP, I opted to remove the c'tor and go for aggregate initialization.
It only required two deduction guides to make the code almost as pretty as your original scheme:
Live on Coliru
#include <utility>
#include <iostream>
struct empty {
void operator()() {}
};
template <typename P, typename T>
struct node : P, T
{
template <typename FThen>
auto then(FThen&& f_then)
{
return ::node{std::move(*this), std::forward<FThen>(f_then)};
}
void operator()() {
P::operator()();
T::operator()();
}
};
template <typename P> node(P) -> node<P, ::empty>;
template <typename P, typename T> node(P, T) -> node<P, T>;
int main()
{
auto f = node{[]{ }}.then([]{ }).then([]{ });
std::cout << sizeof(f);
}
The EBO was applied, as you can see by following the link.
BTW, since we are are moving *this, it may be worth to r-value qualify node::then. Just to avoid any nastiness.
Given the as-if rule and [expr.prim.lambda.closure]/2:
An implementation may define the closure type differently from what is
described below provided this does not alter the observable behavior
of the program other than by changing:
the size and/or alignment of the closure type,
whether the closure type is trivially copyable (Clause [class]),
whether the closure type is a standard-layout class (Clause [class]), or
whether the closure type is a POD class (Clause [class]).
I don't see anything preventing an implementation from using some kind of magic to optimize away the storage for the captured empty variable.
That said, doing so would be an ABI break, so don't hold your breath.
Allowing - or requiring - an implementation to make the type of a captured empty variable a base of the closure type, on the other hand, would be a horrendously bad idea. Consider:
struct X { };
struct Y { };
void meow(X x); // #1
void meow(Y y); // #2
void meow(std::function<void()> f); // #3
template<class T, class U>
void purr(T t, U u) {
meow([t = std::move(t), u = std::move(u)] { /* ... */ });
}
It would be insane for purr to do anything other than call #3, yet if captures can become bases then it can call #1, or #2, or be ambiguous.
As others have noted, lambdas are specified to capture as member variables not as bases. So you are out of luck.
What you could do is take a page from bind.
Suppose you have a tuple that does use empty base optimization. Then we can write a helper:
template<class Sig>
struct lambda_ebo_t;
template<class F, class...Args>
struct lambda_ebo_t<F(Args...)>:
private std::tuple<Args...>,
private F
{
decltype(auto) operator()(){
return std::apply( (F&)*this, (std::tuple<Args...>&)*this );
}
template<class...Ts>
lambda_ebo_t( F f, Ts&&...ts ):
std::tuple<Args...>( std::forward<Ts>(ts)... ),
F( std::move(f) )
{}
};
template<class F, class...Args>
lambda_ebo_t<F, std::decay_t<Args>...>
lambda_ebo( F f, Args&&...args ) {
return {std::move(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...};
}
That is a bunch of boilerplate, and incomplete (reference capture may not work right even if you use std::ref), but it gives us:
template <typename FThen>
auto then(FThen&& f_then)
{
return ::node{lambda_ebo([](auto&& p, auto&& t)
{
}, std::move(*this), std::move(f_then))};
}
where we store the data outside the lambda and pass it in as arguments to the lambda. The storage uses EBO.
No need to write a custom EBO class for each lambda, just a few hoops to jump through when you need a lambda with EBO enabled.
This is one without using the tuple, but it doesn't support fundamantal types like int or other things you cannot derive from:
template<class Sig>
struct lambda_ebo_t;
template<class F, class...Args>
struct lambda_ebo_t<F(Args...)>:
private Args...,
// private std::tuple<Args...>,
private F
{
decltype(auto) operator()(){
//return std::apply( (F&)*this, (std::tuple<Args...>&)*this );
return ((F&)(*this))((Args&)*this...);
}
template<class...Ts>
lambda_ebo_t( F f, Ts&&...ts ):
Args(std::forward<Ts>(ts))...,
F( std::move(f) )
{}
};
template<class F, class...Args>
lambda_ebo_t<F(std::decay_t<Args>...)>
lambda_ebo( F f, Args&&...args ) {
return {std::move(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...};
}
Live example, with this test code:
auto test = lambda_ebo( [](auto&&...args){std::cout << sizeof...(args) << "\n";}, []{} , []{}, []{}, []{}, []{}, []{}, []{}, []{}); //
std::cout << "bytes:" << sizeof(test) << "\n";
std::cout << "args:";
test();
sizeof(test) is 1, and it "captures" 8 arguments.
Empty base optimization works for me in the following case
#include <utility>
template <typename F>
class Something : public F {
public:
Something(F&& f_in) : F{std::move(f_in)} {}
};
int main() {
auto something = Something{[]{}};
static_assert(sizeof(decltype(something)) == 1);
}
Live example here https://wandbox.org/permlink/J4m4epDUs19kp5CH
My guess is that the reason it's not working in your case is that the lambda you use in the then() method is not actually empty, it has member variables - the ones listed in your capture. So there is no real empty base there.
If you change the last line of your code to just return node{[]{}} then it works. The lambdas used by .then() do not materialize as "empty" classes.
Whereas in the explicit struct case, it has no member variables per se, only classes it derives from, hence empty base optimization can work there.
For a Packaged_Task implementation in C++11
i want to achieve what i've expressed in C++14 Code below. In other words i want to forward into a lambda expression.
template<class F>
Packaged_Task(F&& f) {
Promise<R> p;
_future = p.get_future();
auto f_holder = [f = std::forward<F>(f)]() mutable { return std::move(f); };
///...
I'm aware of workarounds for moving into a lambda (but unfortenately this workarounds need a default constructible Object, in my case the object is most often a lambda expression without default-constructor)
How about creating a wrapper struct which does a move during copy construction:(. (I know that's bad, makes me remember of auto_ptr)
template <typename F>
struct Wrapped {
using Ftype = typename std::remove_reference<F>::type;
Wrapped(Ftype&& f): f_(std::move(f)) {}
Wrapped(const Wrapped& o): f_(std::move(o.f_)) {}
mutable Ftype f_;
};
template<class F>
Packaged_Task(F&& f) {
Promise<R> p;
_future = p.get_future();
Wrapped<std::remove_reference<decltype(f)>::type> wrap(std::forward<F>(f));
auto f_holder = [wrap]() mutable { return std::move(wrap.f_); };
This is just a rough idea. Not compiled or tested.
NOTE: I have seen this technique before, do not remember whether it was on SO itself or on some blog.
First, let's boil down the question to its core: the function object is somewhat of a distraction. Essentially, you want to be able to create a lambda with a capture holding a move-only object. In C++11 that isn't directly supported which gave raise to the C++14 approach of allowing specification of how the capture is build.
For C++11 it is necessary to use a copy. Since the underlying type doesn't support copying, it become necessary to actually move the object instead of copying it. Doing so can be achieved by a suitable wrapper defining a copy constructor not really copying but rather moving. Here is an example showing that:
#include <utility>
struct foo {
foo(int) {}
foo(foo&&) = default;
foo(foo const&) = delete;
};
template <typename T>
class move_copy
{
T object;
public:
move_copy(T&& object): object(std::move(object)) {}
move_copy(move_copy& other): object(std::move(other.object)) {}
T extract() { return std::forward<T>(this->object); }
};
template <typename T>
void package(T&& object)
{
move_copy<T> mc(std::forward<T>(object));
foo g = [mc]() mutable { return mc.extract(); }();
}
int main()
{
foo f(0);
package(std::move(f));
}
The move_copy<T> wrapper actually just captures the argument the way it is passed: if an lvalue is being passed in, an lvalue is captured. To properly get hold of the contained object, the extract() member std::forward<T>()s the object: the function can be called only once safely as an object is potentially moved from there.
Breaking copy semantics by making it a move is a bad idea. If it was the only option, go for it, but it is not.
Instead, we can pass the moved value in as an argument to the lambda, and move it into the wrapping code.
curry_apply takes some value and a function object, and returns that function object with the value bound to the first argument.
template<class T, class F>
struct curry_apply_t {
T t;
F f;
template<class...Args>
auto operator()(Args&&...args)
-> typename std::result_of_t<F&(T&, Args...)>::type
{
return f(t, std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
};
template<class T, class F>
curry_apply_t<typename std::decay<T>::type, typename std::decay<F>::type>
curry_apply( T&& t, F&& f ) {
return {std::forward<T>(t), std::forward<F>(f)};
}
Use:
template<class F>
Packaged_Task(F&& f) {
Promise<R> p;
_future = p.get_future();
auto f_holder = curry_apply(
std::move(_future),
[](Future<R>& f) mutable { return std::move(f); };
);
basically we store the moved-in data outside of the lambda in a manually written function object. We then pass it in as an lvalue argument at the front of the lambda's argument list.
Here is a more complex version of the same solution.
This seems like something that ought to be frequently asked and answered, but my search-fu has failed me.
I'm writing a function which I want to accept a generic callable object of some kind (including bare function, hand-rolled functor object, bind, or std::function) and then invoke it within the depths of an algorithm (ie. a lambda).
The function is currently declared like this:
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something(const T& a, const F& f)
{
T internal_value(a);
// do some complicated things
// loop {
// loop {
f(static_cast<const T&>(internal_value), other_stuff);
// do some more things
// }
// }
return 42;
}
I'm accepting the functor by reference because I want to guarantee that it does not get copied on entry to the function, and thus the same instance of the object is actually called. And it's a const reference because this is the only way to accept temporary objects (which are common when using hand-rolled functors or bind).
But this requires that the functor implement operator() as const. I don't want to require that; I want it to be able to accept both.
I know I can declare two copies of this method, one that accepts it as const and one as non-const, in order to cover both cases. But I don't want to do that as the comments are hiding quite a lot of code that I don't want to duplicate (including some loop constructs, so I can't extract them to a secondary method without just moving the problem).
I also know I could probably cheat and const_cast the functor to non-const before I invoke it, but this feels potentially dangerous (and in particular would invoke the wrong method if the functor intentionally implements both const and non-const call operators).
I've considered accepting the functor as a std::function/boost::function, but this feels like a heavy solution to what ought to be a simple problem. (Especially in the case where the functor is supposed to do nothing.)
Is there a "right" way to satisfy these requirements short of duplicating the algorithm?
[Note: I would prefer a solution that does not require C++11, although I am interested in C++11 answers too, as I'm using similar constructs in projects for both languages.]
Have you tried a forwarding layer, to force inference of the qualifier? Let the compiler do the algorithm duplication, through the normal template instantiation mechanism.
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something_impl(const T& a, F& f)
{
T internal_value(a);
const T& c_iv = interval_value;
// do some complicated things
// loop {
// loop {
f(c_iv, other_stuff);
// do some more things
// }
// }
return 42;
}
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something(const T& a, F& f)
{
return do_something_impl<T,F>(a, f);
}
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something(const T& a, const F& f)
{
return do_something_impl<T,const F>(a, f);
}
Demo: http://ideone.com/owj6oB
The wrapper should be completely inlined and have no runtime cost at all, except for the fact that you might end up with more template instantiations (and therefore larger code size), though that will only happen when for types with no operator()() const where both const (or temporary) and non-const functors get passed.
Answer for new relaxed requirements.
In commentary on another answer the OP has clarified/changed the requirements to…
“I'm ok with requiring that if the functor is passed in as a temporary
then it must have an operator() const. I just don't want to limit it
to that, such that if a functor is not passed in as a temporary (and
also not a const non-temporary, of course) then it is allowed to have
a non-const operator(), and this will be called”
This is then not a problem at all: just provide an overload that accepts a temporary.
There are several ways of distinguishing the original basic implementation, e.g. in C++11 an extra default template argument, and in C++03 an extra defaulted ordinary function argument.
But the most clear is IMHO to just give it a different name and then provide an overloaded wrapper:
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something_impl( T const& a, F& f)
{
T internal_value(a);
// do some complicated things
// loop {
// loop {
f(static_cast<const T&>(internal_value), other_stuff);
// do some more things
// }
// }
return 42;
}
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something( T const& a, F const& f)
{ return do_something_impl( a, f ); }
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something( T const& a, F& f)
{ return do_something_impl( a, f ); }
Note: there's no need to specify the do_something_impl instantiation explicitly, since it's inferred from the lvalue arguments.
The main feature of this approach is that it supports simpler calls, at the cost of not supporting a temporary as argument when it has non-const operator().
Original answer:
Your main goal is to avoid copying of the functor, and to accept a temporary as actual argument.
In C++11 you can just use an rvalue reference, &&
For C++03 the problem is a temporary functor instance as actual argument, where that functor has non-const operator().
One solution is to pass the burden to the client code programmer, e.g.
require the actual argument to be an lvalue, not a temporary, or
require explicit specification that the argument is a temporary, then take it as reference to const and use const_cast.
Example:
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something( T const& a, F& f)
{
T internal_value(a);
// do some complicated things
// loop {
// loop {
f(static_cast<const T&>(internal_value), other_stuff);
// do some more things
// }
// }
return 42;
}
enum With_temp { with_temp };
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something( T const& a, With_temp, F const& f )
{
return do_something( a, const_cast<F&>( f ) );
}
If it is desired to directly support temporaries of const type, to ease the client code programmer's life also for this rare case, then one solution is to just add an additional overload:
enum With_const_temp { with_const_temp };
template<typename T, typename F>
size_t do_something( T const& a, With_const_temp, F const& f )
{
return do_something( a, f );
}
Thanks to Steve Jessop and Ben Voigt for discussion about this case.
An alternative and much more general C++03 way is to provide the following two little functions:
template< class Type >
Type const& ref( Type const& v ) { return v; }
template< class Type >
Type& non_const_ref( Type const& v ) { return const_cast<T&>( v ); }
Then do_something, as given above in this answer, can be called like …
do_something( a, ref( MyFunctor() ) );
do_something( a, non_const_ref( MyFunctor() ) );
Why I didn't think of that immediately, in spite of having employed this solution for other things like string building: it's easy to create complexity, harder to simplify! :)
I'd like to create a function that takes a weak pointer and any kind of functor (lambda, std::function, whatever) and returns a new functor that only executes the original functor when the pointer was not removed in the meantime (so let's assume there is a WeakPointer type with such semantics). This should all work for any functor without having to specify explicitly the functor signature through template parameters or a cast.
EDIT:
Some commenters have pointed out that std::function - which I used in my approach - might not be needed at all and neither might the lambda (though in my original question I also forgot to mention that I need to capture the weak pointer parameter), so any alternative solution that solves the general problem is of course is also highly appreciated, maybe I didn't think enough outside the box and was to focused on using a lambda + std::function. In any case, here goes what I tried so far:
template<typename... ArgumentTypes>
inline std::function<void(ArgumentTypes...)> wrap(WeakPointer pWeakPointer, const std::function<void(ArgumentTypes...)>&& fun)
{
return [=] (ArgumentTypes... args)
{
if(pWeakPointer)
{
fun(args...);
}
};
}
This works well without having to explicitly specify the argument types if I pass an std::function, but fails if I pass a lambda expression. I guess this because the std::function constructor ambiguity as asked in this question. In any case, I tried the following helper to be able to capture any kind of function:
template<typename F, typename... ArgumentTypes>
inline function<void(ArgumentTypes...)> wrap(WeakPointer pWeakPointer, const F&& fun)
{
return wrap(pWeakPointer, std::function<void(ArgumentTypes...)>(fun));
}
This now works for lambdas that don't have parameters but fails for other ones, since it always instantiates ArgumentTypes... with an empty set.
I can think of two solution to the problem, but didn't manage to implement either of them:
Make sure that the correct std::function (or another Functor helper type) is created for a lambda, i.e. that a lambda with signature R(T1) results in a std::function(R(T1)) so that the ArgumentTypes... will be correctly deduced
Do not put the ArgumentTypes... as a template parameter instead have some other way (boost?) to get the argument pack from the lambda/functor, so I could do something like this:
-
template<typename F>
inline auto wrap(WeakPointer pWeakPointer, const F&& fun) -> std::function<void(arg_pack_from_functor(fun))>
{
return wrap(pWeakPointer, std::function<void(arg_pack_from_functor(fun))(fun));
}
You don't have to use a lambda.
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename F>
struct Wrapper {
F f;
template <typename... T>
auto operator()(T&&... args) -> typename std::result_of<F(T...)>::type {
std::cout << "calling f with " << sizeof...(args) << " arguments.\n";
return f(std::forward<T>(args)...);
}
};
template <typename F>
Wrapper<F> wrap(F&& f) {
return {std::forward<F>(f)};
}
int main() {
auto f = wrap([](int x, int y) { return x + y; });
std::cout << f(2, 3) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Assuming the weak pointer takes the place of the first argument, here's how I would do it with a generic lambda (with move captures) and if C++ would allow me to return such a lambda:
template<typename Functor, typename Arg, typename... Args>
auto wrap(Functor&& functor, Arg&& arg)
{
return [functor = std::forward<Functor>(functor)
, arg = std::forward<Arg>(arg)]<typename... Rest>(Rest&&... rest)
{
if(auto e = arg.lock()) {
return functor(*e, std::forward<Rest>(rest)...);
} else {
// Let's handwave this for the time being
}
};
}
It is possible to translate this hypothetical code into actual C++11 code if we manually 'unroll' the generic lambda into a polymorphic functor:
template<typename F, typename Pointer>
struct wrap_type {
F f;
Pointer pointer;
template<typename... Rest>
auto operator()(Rest&&... rest)
-> decltype( f(*pointer.lock(), std::forward<Rest>(rest)...) )
{
if(auto p = lock()) {
return f(*p, std::forward<Rest>(rest)...);
} else {
// Handle
}
}
};
template<typename F, typename Pointer>
wrap_type<typename std::decay<F>::type, typename std::decay<Pointer>::type>
wrap(F&& f, Pointer&& pointer)
{ return { std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<Pointer>(pointer) }; }
There are two straightforward options for handling the case where the pointer has expired: either propagate an exception, or return an out-of-band value. In the latter case the return type would become e.g. optional<decltype( f(*pointer.lock(), std::forward<Rest>(rest)...) )> and // Handle would become return {};.
Example code to see everything in action.
[ Exercise for the ambitious: improve the code so that it's possible to use auto g = wrap(f, w, 4); auto r = g();. Then, if it's not already the case, improve it further so that auto g = wrap(f, w1, 4, w5); is also possible and 'does the right thing'. ]