I wrote a generic matrix class like so:
template <std::size_t N, std::size_t M, class T>
class CMatrix
{
protected:
T* m_elem;
public:
CMatrix() : m_elem(new T[N*M]) {}
~CMatrix() { delete[] m_elem; }
inline bCMatrix& operator*=(const T& val);
inline bCMatrix& operator/=(const T& val);
...
template <std::size_t L> inline CMatrix<L, N, T> operator*(const CMatrix<M, L, T>& mat) const;
};
Now I would like to make several specializations for CMatrix<2,2,T>.
I'd like to add a comstructor CMatrix<2,2,T>(const T& a00, const T& a01, const T& a10, const T& a11) {...}.
And I like to specialize the matrix multiplication for CMatrix<2x2>*CMatrix<2x2>. But on the other hand I'd like to keep the functionalities of *= and /= and so on.
How would I do so?
My only working attempt is to rewrite (copy/past/search/replace) all the code for the specialization N=3, M=3, like:
template <class T>
class CMatrix<3,3,T>
{
...
};
Now I can specialize the matrix-matrix multiplication for 2x2. But I have two nearly identical pieces of code, like one for the generic matrix-vector multiplication and one for the matrix-vector multiplication with matrix 2x2. Which both have to be changed if I optimize the generic one. Sucks to maintain that.
You can read some documentation on class template, such as http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/partial_specialization. For you it entails defining the specialization in a way like this:
template<typename T>
class CMatrix<2, 2, T>
{
public:
CMatrix<2,2,T>(const T& a00, const T& a01, const T& a10, const T& a11);
...
template <std::size_t L> inline CMatrix<L, 2, T> operator*(const CMatrix<2, L, T>& mat) const;
// Special overload for 2x2 x 2x2 multiplication
inline CMatrix<2, 2, T> operator*(const CMatrix<2, 2, T>& mat) const;
};
To prevent duplication of code for operator*= etc you can make a template<int M, int N, typename T> class CMatrixBase {} and implement them in there, and have your actual matrix classes and specializations inherit from that.
Martin suggested to use CRTP, which helps you to not lose your type information. This would look like this:
template<int M, int N, typename T, typename Derived>
class CMatrixBase
{
public:
Derived& operator*=(T val) {
doMultiplication(val);
return *static_cast<Derived*>(this);
}
};
Related
I have written a matrix class which can take different sizes. Now I want to unroll loops for specific sizes. How should I do this?
The only way I can seem to get working is a child-class for 2-d. But this I would like to avoid, as it would result in much duplicate code.
For example:
#include <iostream>
template<class T, size_t M, size_t N>
class matrix
{
matrix<T,M,N>& operator*= (const matrix<T,M,N> &B);
};
template<class T, size_t M, size_t N>
matrix<T,M,N>& matrix<T,M,N>::operator*= (const matrix<T,M,N> &B)
{
// ...
return *this;
}
int main()
{
return 0;
}
Now I would like to add an implementation for the case that M = 2 and N = 2 where I unroll all loops to gain efficiency.
(I have timed the unroll in a previous implemenation, and it really does seem to make sense, in particular for more complicated operations then featured in this example.)
You can delegate operator*= to an overloaded function template. E.g.:
template<class T, size_t M, size_t N>
class matrix
{
public:
matrix<T,M,N>& operator*=(const matrix<T,M,N>&);
};
// Generic version.
template<class T, size_t M, size_t N>
void inplace_dot(matrix<T,M,N>& a, matrix<T,M,N> const& b);
// Overload for 2x2 matrix.
template<class T>
void inplace_dot(matrix<T,2,2>& a, matrix<T,2,2> const& b);
template<class T, size_t M, size_t N>
matrix<T,M,N>& matrix<T,M,N>::operator*=(const matrix<T,M,N>& b)
{
inplace_dot(*this, b);
return *this;
}
I'm creating a simple C++ matrix template class, with the following definition:
template<uint n, uint m, typename T = double>
class Matrix {
private:
T data[n][m];
static Matrix<n, m, T> I;
public:
Matrix();
Matrix(std::initializer_list<T> l);
T& at(uint i, uint j); // one-based index
T& at_(uint i, uint j); // zero-based index
template<uint k> Matrix<n, k, T> operator*(Matrix<m, k, T>& rhs);
Matrix<m, n, T> transpose();
Matrix<n, m, T> operator+(const Matrix<n, m, T>& rhs);
Matrix<n, m, T>& operator+=(const Matrix<n, m, T>& rhs);
Matrix<n, m, T> operator-(const Matrix<n, m, T>& rhs);
Matrix<n, m, T>& operator-=(const Matrix<n, m, T>& rhs);
Matrix<n, m, T> operator*(const T& rhs);
Matrix<n, m, T>& operator*=(const T& rhs);
Matrix<n, m, T> operator/(const T& rhs);
Matrix<n, m, T>& operator/=(const T& rhs);
static Matrix<n, m, T> identity();
};
(uint is defined as an unsigned int)
The final function Matrix<n, m, T> identity() aims to return the static I member which is the identity matrix using a basic singleton pattern. Obviously the identity matrix is only defined for square matrices so I tried this:
template<uint n, typename T>
inline Matrix<n, n, T> Matrix<n, n, T>::identity() {
if (!I) {
I = Matrix<n, n, T>();
for (uint i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
I.at(i, i) = 1;
}
}
return I;
}
Which gives the error C2244 'Matrix<n,n,T>::identity': unable to match function definition to an existing declaration.
My impression was that I could do some sort of specialisation of the template where the number of columns and rows are equal. I'm not sure if this is even possible, but your help would be much appreciated.
Try this:
static Matrix<n, m> identity() {
static_assert(n == m, "Only square matrices have a identity");
return {}; //TODO
}
See: http://cpp.sh/7te2z
Partial specialization of a template class is allowed for the entire class, but not for its single member.
Members of partial specializations are not related to the members of the primary
template.
That is the reason behind your compilation error.
Of course, specializing the entire Matrix template for the square matrix case doesn't make sense. #tkausl has already answered how to make the identity() function available only for the square matrix types.
However, I would like to draw your attention toward a couple of issues in your implementation of Matrix:
The matrix data is a plain array (instead of a dynamically allocated array or std::vector). This has the following disadvantages:
sizeof(Matrix<N, M, T>) == sizeof(T)*N*M. Allocating large matrices on the stack may result in stack overflow.
Impossibility of taking advantage of move semantics (as the data is inseparable from the matrix object).
Though, if the matrix dimensions are fixed at compile time constants, then, most probably, they will be small numbers. If so, paying the cost of dynamic allocation may indeed be unjustified.
identity() returns its result by value (rather than by constant reference).
I (the identity matrix) is a static member of the class. It is better to make it a static variable inside the identity() function.
This Vec template supports several functions such as multiplying a vector by scalar and adding vector to another vector.
The thing that is confusing me is that why the overloading of the second operator* is outside of the class template?
The operator* which is declared in the class overloads vectorXscalar
The one declared outside supports scalarXvector
template <class T>
class Vec {
public:
typename list<T>::const_iterator begin() const {
return vals_.begin();
}
typename list<T>::const_iterator end() const {
return vals_.end();
}
Vec() {};
Vec(const T& el);
void push_back(T el);
unsigned int size() const;
Vec operator+(const Vec& rhs) const;
Vec operator*(const T& rhs) const; //here
T& operator[](unsigned int ind);
const T& operator[](unsigned int ind) const;
Vec operator,(const Vec& rhs) const;
Vec operator[](const Vec<unsigned int>& ind) const;
template <class Compare>
void sort(Compare comp) {
vals_.sort(comp);
}
protected:
list<T> vals_;
};
template <class T>
Vec<T> operator*(const T& lhs, const Vec<T>& rhs); //and here!
template <class T>
ostream& operator<<(ostream& ro, const Vec<T>& v);
The operator* declared inside the template class could equally be written outside the class as
template <class T>
Vec<T> operator*(const Vec<T>& lhs, const T& rhs);
It can be written inside the class with a single argument (representing the rhs) because there is the implied *this argument used as the lhs of the operator.
The difference with the operator* defined outside the class is that the lhs of the operator is a template type. This allows the arguments to be supplied either way around when using the operator.
You are allowed to define the operator outside of a class with any arbitrary lhs and rhs types, but within the class are restricted to only varying the rhs. The compiler would select the best match of any defined operator* given the argument types.
As an exercise to learn a little more about dynamic memory allocation in C++, I'm working on my own vector class. I'm running into a little difficulty overloading the sum operator, so I thought I'd turn here to get some insight into why this doesn't work. Here's what I have so far:
template<typename T>
class vector
{
private:
T* pointer_;
unsigned long size_;
public:
// Constructors and destructors.
vector();
template<typename A> vector(const A&);
template<typename A> vector(const A&, const T&);
vector(const vector<T>&);
~vector();
// Methods.
unsigned long size();
T* begin();
T* end();
vector<T>& push_back(const T&);
// Operators.
T operator[](unsigned long);
vector<T>& operator=(const vector<T>&);
friend vector<T>& operator+(const vector<T>&, const vector<T>&);
};
The template<typename A> vector(const A&) constructor looks like this:
template<typename T> template<typename A>
vector<T>::vector(const A& size)
{
this->pointer_ = new T[size];
this->size_ = size;
}
Finally, the operator+ operator looks like this:
template<typename T>
vector<T>& operator+(const vector<T>& lhs, const vector<T>& rhs)
{
vector<T> result(lhs.size_);
for (unsigned long i = 0; i != result.size_; i++)
{
result.pointer_[i] = lhs.pointer_[i] + rhs.pointer_[i];
}
return result;
}
My compiler (VS2013) returns an unresolved external symbol error when I try to compile this code, which (as I understand it) means there's a function declared somewhere that I haven't actually defined. I'm not sure where the problem is, however: the template<typename A> vector(const A&) constructor works fine. What am I missing?
You're not properly friending the template operator function. There are multiple ways to do this, each of which has advantages. One is the friend-the-world ideology where all expansions of the template are friends with each other. I prefer to be a bit more restrictive than that.
Above your vector class, do this:
template<typename T>
class vector;
template<typename T>
vector<T> operator+(const vector<T>& lhs, const vector<T>& rhs);
The proceed as before, but note the syntax in the friend declaration:
// vector class goes here....
template<typename T> class vector
{
.... stuff ....
friend vector<T> operator+<>(const vector<T>&, const vector<T>&);
};
Then define the rest as you have it. That should get you what I think you're trying to achieve.
Best of luck.
PS: invalid reference return value fixed in the above code.
I've got a Matrix class. It's a template with type, rows and cols for static allocation of small matrix. The problem is with the overload of operator* and operator*=. In this case the operation must be granted for a different object: same type, rows equals to my column and a number of columns. I wrote this code now and it works, but I wonder if I can force to use the same type T instead of having another type T1. Same thing for rows and columns.
template<typename T, int R, int C>
class Matrix {
private:
//some data.....
public:
//some methods.....
template <typename T1, int R1, int C1> <----here I'd like to use T as type
Matrix<T,R,C1> operator*(const Matrix<T,R1,C1>& rhs);
template <typename T1, int R1, int C1>
Matrix<T,R,C1>& operator*=(const Matrix<T,R1,C1>& rhs);
}
For operator *, the template parameters don't have to match the function arguments, so you can just leave it out. Also, there is a restriction that the number of rows of the second matrix match the number of columns of the first matrix, so you really only need one template parameter:
template<typename T, int R, int C>
class Matrix {
private:
//some data.....
public:
//some methods.....
template <int C1>
Matrix<T,R,C1> operator*(const Matrix<T,C,C1>& rhs) const;
};
operator *= can only work with square matrices, so you have to be careful there.
template<typename T, int R, int C>
class Matrix {
private:
//some data.....
public:
//some methods.....
template <int C2>
Matrix<T,R,C2> operator*(const Matrix<T,C,C2>& rhs);
Matrix& operator*=(const Matrix<T,C,C>& rhs);
}
You can just use the template arguments from the enclosing class, no worry.
Anyway, I reduced both operators to what matrix-multiplication actually allows.