In C++, we can pass a function/functor to a function like so:
template <typename F>
void doOperation(int a, int b, F f){
std::cout << "Result: " << f(a,b) << std::endl;
}
we can then use both functions and functors:
int add(const int &a, const int &b){ return a+b; }
struct subtract(){
void operator() (const int &a, const int &b) { return a-b; }
};
and use it in the following manner:
doOperation(1,2,add);
doOperation(5,2,subtract());
My question is, can I do something similar with a class and pass a function as an argument to a class, store it and use it later? E.g.
template <typename F>
class doOperation{
public:
doOperation(int &a, int &b, F f) : a(a), b(b), f(f) {};
void setOperands(int &a, int &b) { this->a = a; this->b = b };
void performCalculation(){
std::cout << "Result: " << f(a,b) << std::endl;
}
private:
int a,b;
F f;
}
So that we may assign it a function once and then later use it:
doOperation summing(1,2,add);
summing.setOperands(2,3);
summing.performCalculation();
doOperation subtraction(7,3,subtract());
subtraction.performCalculation();
If my examples are valid, I would appreciate the explanation for the mechanics here as I seem to be getting a bit lost. In case I missed something, I am looking for hints on whether this can be achieved.
Lastly, how would I then use such a class doOperation in other functions and classes. For example, would defining something like this inside a member function require me to template the new class, its member function, and how would it be declared and used:
class higherFunctionality{
public:
higherFunctionality() {...}
void coolThings(){
doOperation *myOperation = operationFactory( ... );
myOperation->setOperands(4,5);
myOperation->performCalculation();
}
};
Yes, but you have to supply the type when you instantiate template classes. The usual way to deal with this is to create a helper function:
template < typename Fun > struct operation_class
{
operation_class(Fun f) : fun{f} {}
Fun fun;
};
template < typename Fun >
operation_class<Fun> operation(Fun fun) { return operation_class<Fun>{fun}; }
int main()
{
auto op0 = operation(some_fun);
auto op1 = operation(some_functor{});
}
Frankly though, you are better off just using lambda:
auto op0 = [a,b]() { return sum(a,b); };
auto op1 = [a,b]() { return subtract{a,b}(); }
// C++17:
auto op2 = [op=subtract{a,b}] { return op(); };
Related
This question is related to Enforcing a common interface with std::variant without inheritance.
The difference between that question and this one, is that I wouldn't mind inheritance, I am simply looking for the following structs/classes...
struct Parent { virtual int get() = 0; };
struct A : public Parent { int get() { return 1; } };
struct B : public Parent { int get() { return 2; } };
struct C : public Parent { int get() { return 3; } };
... to be AUTOMATICALLY "assembled" into a template:
template<typename PARENT, typename... TYPES>
struct Multi
{
// magic happens here
}
// The type would accept assignment just like an std::variant would...
Multi<Parent, A, B, C> multiA = A();
Multi<Parent, A, B, C> multiB = B();
Multi<Parent, A, B, C> multiC = C();
// And it would also be able to handle virtual dispatch as if it were a Parent*
Multi<Parent, A, B, C> multiB = B();
multiB.get(); // returns 2
Is this possible? If so, how? I would like to avoid working with handling pointers, as the use of std::variant/unions is intended to make memory contiguous.
You can't automagically set this up to allow multiB.get(), but you can allow multiB->get() or (*multiB).get() and even implicit conversion, by providing operator overloads:
template<typename Base, typename... Types>
struct Multi : std::variant<Types...>
{
using std::variant<Types...>::variant;
operator Base&() { return getref<Base>(*this); }
Base& operator*() { return static_cast<Base&>(*this); }
Base* operator->() { return &static_cast<Base&>(*this); }
operator const Base&() const { return getref<const Base>(*this); }
const Base& operator*() const { return static_cast<const Base&>(*this); }
const Base* operator->() const { return &static_cast<const Base&>(*this); }
private:
template<typename T, typename M>
static T& getref(M& m) {
return std::visit([](auto&& x) -> T& { return x; }, m);
}
};
You've probably encountered this kind of thing before when using iterators from the standard library.
Example:
int main()
{
Multi<Parent, A, B, C> multiA = A();
Multi<Parent, A, B, C> multiB = B();
Multi<Parent, A, B, C> multiC = C();
// Dereference
std::cout << (*multiA).get();
std::cout << (*multiB).get();
std::cout << (*multiC).get();
// Indirection
std::cout << multiA->get();
std::cout << multiB->get();
std::cout << multiC->get();
// Implicit conversion
auto fn = [](Parent& p) { std::cout << p.get(); };
fn(multiA);
fn(multiB);
fn(multiC);
}
Output:
123123123
If I have a class that needs to call a parent class method with a class method as parameter I can do it with std::function + std::bind as shown below:
class A {
void complexMethod(std::function<void()> variableMethod) {
// other stuff ...
variableMethod();
// some other stuff..
}
}
class B : public A {
void myWay() {
// this and that
}
void otherWay() {
// other and different
}
void doingSomething() {
// Preparing to do something complex.
complexMethod(std::bind(&B::myWay, this));
}
void doingAnotherThing() {
// Different preparation to do some other complex thing.
complexMethod(std::bind(&B::otherWay, this));
}
}
How would I need to change the above code to implement the same thing using templates instead of std::function + std::bind?
And how about lambdas instead of std::function + std::bind? I still want to call B:myWay() and B::otherWay() but using lambdas. I don't want to substitute B:myWay() and B::otherWay() with lambdas.
Is there any implementation technique (one of the above or some other) were I would be able to make variableMethod return type and parameters explicit? How would I do it? Let's say the signature of variableMethod is:
bool variableMethod(int a, double b);
Which technique is recommended? Why (speed, flexibility, readility...)?
Template + lambda solution:
struct A
{
template <typename F>
void runA(F func)
{
cout << 1 << endl;
func();
cout << 3 << endl;
}
};
struct B : A
{
int number = 2;
void runnable() { cout << number << endl; }
void runB()
{
cout << 0 << endl;
runA([this]() { runnable(); });
cout << 4 << endl;
}
};
int main()
{
B variable;
variable.runB();
}
In order to take a function as template parameter, just take in a template type of that function like above. lambdas can be used instead of bind to make things easier (this is passed to lambda captures list).
Explicitly declaring the arguments:
void run_func(std::function<bool(int, double)> func)
{
bool b = func(10, 10.01);
}
std::function allows you to define your arguement and return types like above.
How would I need to change the above code to implement the same thing
using templates instead of std::function + std::bind?
And how about lambdas instead of std::function + std::bind? I
still want to call B:myWay() and B::otherWay() but using lambdas.
I don't want to substitute B:myWay() and B::otherWay() with
lambdas.
You can use a lambda, yes.
Something like [this]() { return myWay(); } that:
captures this, and
calls a method of the current object.
[Demo]
#include <iostream> // cout
class A {
protected:
template <typename F>
void complexMethod(F&& f) { f(); }
};
class B : public A {
void myWay() { std::cout << "myWay\n"; }
void otherWay() { std::cout << "otherWay\n"; }
public:
void doingSomething() {
complexMethod([this]() { return myWay(); });
}
void doingAnotherThing() {
complexMethod([this]() { return otherWay(); });
}
};
int main() {
B b{};
b.doingSomething();
b.doingAnotherThing();
}
// Outputs:
//
// myWay
// otherWay
Is there any implementation technique (one of the above or some other)
were I would be able to make variableMethod return type and
parameters explicit? How would I do it?
You could use const std::function<bool(int,double)>& f as the parameter receiving a function for complexMethod. And still pass a lambda. Notice though lambdas are now receiving (int i, double d) (it could be (auto i, auto d) as well).
[Demo]
#include <functional> // function
#include <ios> // boolalpha
#include <iostream> // cout
class A {
protected:
bool complexMethod(const std::function<bool(int,double)>& f, int i, double d)
{ return f(i, d); }
};
class B : public A {
bool myWay(int a, double b) { return a < static_cast<int>(b); }
bool otherWay(int a, double b) { return a*a < static_cast<int>(b); }
public:
bool doingSomething(int a, double b) {
return complexMethod([this](int i, double d) {
return myWay(i, d); }, a, b);
}
bool doingAnotherThing(int a, double b) {
return complexMethod([this](auto i, auto d) {
return otherWay(i, d); }, a, b);
}
};
int main() {
B b{};
std::cout << std::boolalpha << b.doingSomething(3, 5.5) << "\n";
std::cout << std::boolalpha << b.doingAnotherThing(3, 5.5) << "\n";
}
// Outputs:
//
// true
// false
Notice also the same could be accomplished with templates, although you wouldn't be making the signature explicit.
[Demo]
#include <functional> // function
#include <ios> // boolalpha
#include <iostream> // cout
class A {
protected:
template <typename F, typename... Args>
auto complexMethod(F&& f, Args&&... args) -> decltype(f(args...))
{ return f(args...); }
};
class B : public A {
bool myWay(int a, double b) { return a < static_cast<int>(b); }
bool otherWay(int a, double b) { return a*a < static_cast<int>(b); }
public:
bool doingSomething(int a, double b) {
return complexMethod([this](auto i, auto d) {
return myWay(i, d); }, a, b);
}
bool doingAnotherThing(int a, double b) {
return complexMethod([this](auto i, auto d) {
return otherWay(i, d); }, a, b);
}
};
int main() {
B b{};
std::cout << std::boolalpha << b.doingSomething(3, 5.5) << "\n";
std::cout << std::boolalpha << b.doingAnotherThing(3, 5.5) << "\n";
}
// Outputs:
//
// true
// false
Which technique is recommended? Why (speed, flexibility,
readility...)?
Item 34 of Scott Meyer's Effective Modern C++ book is titled Prefer lambdas to std::bind. It ends with a summary saying: Lambdas are more readable, more expressive, and may be more efficient than using std::bind. However, it also mentions a case when std::bind may be useful over lambdas.
Consider this pseudo-snippet:
class SomeClass
{
public:
SomeClass()
{
if(true)
{
fooCall = [](auto a){ cout << a.sayHello(); };
}
else
{
fooCall = [](auto b){ cout << b.sayHello(); };
}
}
private:
template<typename T>
std::function<void(T)> fooCall;
};
What I want is a class member fooCall which stores a generic lambda, which in turn is assigned in the constructor.
The compiler complains that fooCall cannot be a templated data member.
Is there any simple solution on how i can store generic lambdas in a class?
There is no way you'll be able to choose between two generic lambdas at run-time, as you don't have a concrete signature to type-erase.
If you can make the decision at compile-time, you can templatize the class itself:
template <typename F>
class SomeClass
{
private:
F fooCall;
public:
SomeClass(F&& f) : fooCall{std::move(f)} { }
};
You can then create an helper function to deduce F:
auto makeSomeClassImpl(std::true_type)
{
auto l = [](auto a){ cout << a.sayHello(); };
return SomeClass<decltype(l)>{std::move(l)};
}
auto makeSomeClassImpl(std::false_type)
{
auto l = [](auto b){ cout << b.sayHello(); };
return SomeClass<decltype(l)>{std::move(l)};
}
template <bool B>
auto makeSomeClass()
{
return makeSomeClassImpl(std::bool_constant<B>{});
}
I was not able to store std::function<> as a generic lambda in the class directly as a member. What I was able to do was to specifically use one within the class's constructor. I'm not 100% sure if this is what the OP was trying to achieve but this is what I was able to compile, build & run with what I'm suspecting the OP was aiming for by the code they provided.
template<class>
class test {
public: // While testing I changed this to public access...
// Could not get object below to compile, build & run
/*template<class U = T>
static std::function<void(U)> fooCall;*/
public:
test();
};
template<class T>
test<T>::test() {
// This would not compile, build & run
// fooCall<T> = []( T t ) { std::cout << t.sayHello(); };
// Removed the variable within the class as a member and moved it here
// to local scope of the class's constructor
std::function<void(T)> fooCall = []( auto a ) { std::cout << a.sayHello(); };
T t; // created an instance of <Type T>
fooCall(t); // passed t into fooCall's constructor to invoke the call.
}
struct A {
std::string sayHello() { return "A say's Hello!\n"; }
};
struct B {
std::string sayHello() { return "B say's Hello!\n"; }
};
int main() {
// could not instantiate an object of SomeClass<T> with a member of
// a std::function<> type that is stored by a type of a generic lambda.
/*SomeClass<A> someA;
SomeClass<B> someB;
someA.foo();
someB.foo();*/
// Simply just used the object's constructors to invoke the locally stored lambda within the class's constructor.
test<A> a;
test<B> b;
std::cout << "\nPress any key & enter to quit." << std::endl;
char c;
std::cin >> c;
return 0;
}
With the appropriate headers the above as is should compile, build & run giving the output below (At least in MSVS 2017 on Windows 7 64bit did); I left comments where I ran into errors and tried multiple different techniques to achieve a working example, errors occurred as others suggested and I found even more while working with the above code. What I was able to compile, build and run came down to this simple bit of code here without the comments. I also added another simple class to show it will work with any type:
template<class>
class test {
public:
test();
};
template<class T>
test<T>::test() {
std::function<void( T )> fooCall = []( auto a ) { std::cout << a.sayHello(); };
T t;
fooCall( t );
}
struct A {
std::string sayHello() { return "A say's Hello!\n"; }
};
struct B {
std::string sayHello() { return "B say's Hello!\n"; }
};
struct C {
int sayHello() { return 100; }
};
int main() {
test<A> testA;
test<B> testB;
test<C> testC;
std::cout << "\nPress any key & enter to quit." << std::endl;
char c;
std::cin >> c;
return 0;
}
Output:
A say's Hello!
B say's Hello!
100
Press any key & enter to quit
I don't know if this will help the OP directly or indirectly or not but if it does or even if it doesn't it is still something that they may come back to and build off of.
you can simply use a template class or...
If you can get away with using c++17, you could make fooCall's type std::function<void(const std::any&)> and make a small wrapper for executing it.
method 1 : simply use a template class (C++14).
method 2 : seems to mimic the pseudo code exactly as the OP intended (C++17).
method 3 : is a bit simpler and easier to use than method 2 (C++17).
method 4 : allows us to change the value of fooCall (C++17).
required headers and test structures for the demo :
#include <any> //not required for method 1
#include <string>
#include <utility>
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
struct typeA {
constexpr const char * sayHello() const { return "Hello from A\n"; }
};
struct typeB {
const std::string sayHello() const { return std::string(std::move("Hello from B\n")); }
};
method 1 :
template <typename T>
class C {
const std::function<void(const T&)> fooCall;
public:
C(): fooCall(std::move([](const T &a) { std::cout << a.sayHello(); })){}
void execFooCall(const T &arg) {
fooCall(arg);
}
};
int main (void) {
typeA A;
typeB B;
C<typeA> c1;
C<typeB> c2;
c1.execFooCall(A);
c2.execFooCall(B);
return 0;
}
method 2 :
bool is_true = true;
class C {
std::function<void(const std::any&)> fooCall;
public:
C() {
if (is_true)
fooCall = [](const std::any &a) { std::cout << std::any_cast<typeA>(a).sayHello(); };
else
fooCall = [](const std::any &a) { std::cout << std::any_cast<typeB>(a).sayHello(); };
}
template <typename T>
void execFooCall(const T &arg) {
fooCall(std::make_any<const T&>(arg));
}
};
int main (void) {
typeA A;
typeB B;
C c1;
is_true = false;
C c2;
c1.execFooCall(A);
c2.execFooCall(B);
return 0;
}
method 3 :
/*Note that this very closely resembles method 1. However, we're going to
build off of this method for method 4 using std::any*/
template <typename T>
class C {
const std::function<void(const std::any&)> fooCall;
public:
C() : fooCall(std::move([](const std::any &a) { std::cout << std::any_cast<T>(a).sayHello(); })) {}
void execFooCall(const T &arg) {
fooCall(std::make_any<const T&>(arg));
}
};
int main (void) {
typeA A;
typeB B;
C<typeA> c1;
C<typeB> c2;
c1.execFooCall(A);
c2.execFooCall(B);
return 0;
}
method 4 :
/*by setting fooCall outside of the constructor we can make C a regular class
instead of a templated one, this also complies with the rule of zero.
Now, we can change the value of fooCall whenever we want.
This will also allow us to do things like create a container that stores
a vector or map of functions that each take different parameter types*/
class C {
std::function<void(const std::any&)> fooCall; //could easily be replaced by a vector or map
public:
/*could easily adapt this to take a function as a parameter so we can change
the entire body of the function*/
template<typename T>
void setFooCall() {
fooCall = [](const std::any &a) { std::cout << std::any_cast<T>(a).sayHello(); };
}
template <typename T>
void execFooCall(const T &arg) {
fooCall(std::make_any<const T&>(arg));
}
};
int main (void) {
typeA A;
typeB B;
C c;
c.setFooCall<typeA>;
c.execFooCall(A);
c.setFooCall<typeB>;
c.execFooCall(B);
return 0;
}
Output from Any method
Hello from A
Hello from B
Can I do something like this?
template<function_pointer_type pointer_name> struct structure1{
//here I call pointer_name(0)
};
void* function1 = [&](int a) {
return a * a;
}
structure1<function1> b;
I tried but it never compiled.
So, what's wrong with the code?
function1 is not constant expression so it cannot be used as template argument.
The lambda is not convertible to function pointer because it has a non-empty capture list.
Instead of function pointer, I suggest using a template parameter of function object, or std::function.
Function object:
template <class FunctionObject>
class A
{
private:
FunctionObject fun;
public:
A(FunctionObject f) : fun(f) {}
void f() { cout << fun(5) << endl; }
};
template <class FunctionObject>
A<FunctionObject> make_A(FunctionObject f)
{
return A<FunctionObject>(f);
}
std::function:
template <class FunctionType>
struct B
{
std::function<FunctionType> fun;
};
The usage:
void usage()
{
auto a = make_A([](int a) {return a*a; });
a.f();
B<int(int)> b;
b.fun = [&](int a) {return a*a; };
cout << b.fun(10) << endl;
}
To make this as absolutely similar to your original question as possible (using a lambda and a templated structure and so on):
#include <iostream>
template<typename F>
struct structure1 {
structure1(F x) : f(x) {}
int operator() (int a) { return f(a); };
F f;
};
int(*function1)(int) = [&](int a) {
return a * a;
};
int main() {
structure1< int(*)(int) > x(function1);
std::cout << x(4) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
I compiled and tested this with g++ -std=c++11 test.cpp
As an exercise for my personal enlightenment, I implement vector math with expression templates. I want to implement some operations that apply the same unary function to all elements to a vector expression. So far, I do this.
My base vector expression template is implemented like this
template <typename E>
class VectorExpr {
public:
int size() const { return static_cast<E const&>(*this).size(); }
float operator[](int i) const { return static_cast<E const&>(*this)[i]; }
operator E& () { return static_cast<E&>(*this); }
operator E const& () const { return static_cast<const E&>(*this); }
}; // class VectorExpr
Then, an object supposed to be a vector will look like this
class Vector2 : public VectorExpr<Vector2> {
public:
inline size_t size() const { return 2; }
template <typename E>
inline Vector2(VectorExpr<E> const& inExpr) {
E const& u = inExpr;
for(int i = 0; i < size(); ++i)
mTuple[i] = u[i];
}
private:
float mTuple[2];
};
Let's say I want to apply std::sin to all elements of an expression
template <typename E>
class VectorSin : public VectorExpr<VectorSin<E> > {
E const& mV;
public:
VectorSin(VectorExpr<E> const& inV) : mV(inV) {}
int size() const { return mV.size(); }
float operator [] (int i) const { return std::sin(mV[i]); }
};
Question => If I want to add more functions, I copy-paste what I do for the sin function, for every single function (like cos, sqrt, fabs, and so on). How I can avoid this kind of copy-pasting ? I tried things and figured out I'm still low in template-fu. No boost allowed ^^
template <typename F, typename E>
class VectorFunc : public VectorExpr<VectorFunc<F, E> > {
E const& mV;
public:
VectorSin(VectorExpr<E> const& inV) : mV(inV) {}
int size() const { return mV.size(); }
float operator [] (int i) const { return f(mV[i]); }
// this assumes the Functor f is default constructible, this is
// already not true for &std::sin. Adding the constructor that
// takes f, is left as an exercise ;)
F f;
};
In addition to the answer by pmr, The standard <cmath> functions aren't functors, so you couldn't use them directly to specify unique specialisations of your class - i.e. you wouldn't have a separate template instantiation for std::sin versus std::cos (which is what I gather you're aiming for? correct me if I've misunderstood you on that).
You could create a wrapper in order to map a function pointer to a distinct type, e.g.
#include <iostream>
template< void (*FuncPtr)() > struct Func2Type
{
void operator() () { FuncPtr(); }
};
void Hello() { std::cout << "Hello" << std::endl; }
void World() { std::cout << "world" << std::endl; }
int main()
{
Func2Type<Hello> test1;
Func2Type<World> test2;
test1();
test2();
}
That way you could use them as template arguments in the same way as a normal functor class