Related
So, it's been a while since I have written anything in C++ and now I'm working on a project using C++11 and macros.
I know that by using the stringify operator I can do this:
#define TEXT(a) #a //expands to "a"
How am I supposed to use the preprocessor for recognizing the tokens like + and * to do this:
#define TEXT(a)+ ??? //want to expand to "a+"
#define TEXT(a)* ??? //want to expand to "a*"
when the input has to be in that syntax?
I have tried doing that:
#define + "+"
but of course it doesn't work. How can I make the preprocessor recognize those tokens?
NOTE:
This is actually part of a project for a small language that defines and uses regular expressions, where the resulting string of the macros is to be used in a regex. The syntax is given and we have to use it as it is without making any changes to it.
eg
TEXT(a)+ is to be used to make the regular expression: std::regex("a+")
without changing the fact that TEXT(a) expands to "a"
First,
#define TEXT(a) #a
doesn't “convert to "a"”. a is just a name for a parameter. The macro expands to a string that contains whatever TEXT was called with. So TEXT(42 + rand()) will expand to "42 + rand()". Note that, if you pass a macro as parameter, the macro will not be expanded. TEXT(EXIT_SUCCESS) will expand to "EXIT_SUCCESS", not "0". If you want full expansion, add an additional layer of indirection and pass the argument to TEXT to another macro TEXT_R that does the stringification.
#define TEXT_R(STUFF) # STUFF
#define TEXT(STUFF) TEXT_R(STUFF)
Second, I'm not quite sure what you mean with TEXT(a)+ and TEXT(a)*. Do you want, say, TEXT(foo) to expand to "foo+"? I think the simplest solution in this case would be to use the implicit string literal concatenation.
#define TEXT_PLUS(STUFF) # STUFF "+"
#define TEXT_STAR(STUFF) # STUFF "*"
Or, if you want full expansion.
#define TEXT_R(STUFF) # STUFF
#define TEXT_PLUS(STUFF) TEXT_R(STUFF+)
#define TEXT_STAR(STUFF) TEXT_R(STUFF*)
Your assignment is impossible to solve in C++. You either misunderstood something or there’s an error in the project specification. At any rate, we’ve got a problem here:
TEXT(a)+ is to be used to make the regular expression: std::regex("a+") without changing the fact that TEXT(a) expands to "a" [my emphasis]
TEXT(a) expands to "a" — meaning, we can just replace TEXT(a) everywhere in your example; after all, that’s exactly what the preprocessor does. In other words, you want the compiler to transform this C++ code
"a"+
into
std::regex("a+")
And that’s simply impossible, because the C++ preprocess does not allow expanding the + token.
The best we can do in C++ is use operator overloading to generate the desired code. However, there are two obstacles:
You can only overload operators on custom types, and "a" isn’t a custom type; its type is char const[2] (why 2? Null termination!).
Postfix-+ is not a valid C++ operator and cannot be overloaded.
If your assignment had just been a little different, it would work. In fact, if your assignment had said that TEXT(a)++ should produce the desired result, and that you are allowed to change the definition of TEXT to output something other than "a", then we’d be in business:
#include <string>
#include <regex>
#define TEXT(a) my_regex_token(#a)
struct my_regex_token {
std::string value;
my_regex_token(std::string value) : value{value} {}
// Implicit conversion to `std::regex` — to be handled with care.
operator std::regex() const {
return std::regex{value};
}
// Operators
my_regex_token operator ++(int) const {
return my_regex_token{value + "+"};
}
// more operators …
};
int main() {
std::regex x = TEXT(a)++;
}
You don't want to jab characters onto the end of macros.
Maybe you simply want something like this:
#define TEXT(a, b) #a #b
that way TEXT(a, +) gets expanded to "a" "+" and TEXT(a, *) to "a" "*"
If you need that exact syntax, then use a helper macro, like:
#define TEXT(a) #a
#define ADDTEXT(x, y) TEXT(x ## y)
that way, ADDTEXT(a, +) gets expanded to "a+" and ADDTEXT(a, *) gets expanded to "a*"
You can do it this way too:
#define TEXT(a) "+" // "a" "+" -> "a+"
#define TEXT(a) "*" // "a" "*" -> "a*"
Two string literals in C/C++ will be joined into single literal by specification.
No comma is allowed in a macro argument because it will be treated as more than one arguments and the preprocessing will be wrong. However, we can parenthesize the argument to let preprocessor treat it as one argument. Is there a macro or other techniques which can remove the enclosing parentheses?
For example, if I define a macro like
#define MY_MACRO(a, b) ...
and use it like
MY_MACRO( A<int, double>, text );
will be wrong. use it like
MY_MACRO( (A<int, double>), text)
with a macro or technique to remove the parentheses will be fine. Boost provides BOOST_IDENTITY_TYPE macro for only types but not general cases
#define ESC(...) __VA_ARGS__
then
MY_MACRO( ESC(A<int, double>), text );
might do what you want.
This macro trick is similar to Yakk's solution but removes the need to explicitly pass in another macro as a parameter.
#include <stdio.h>
#define _Args(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define STRIP_PARENS(X) X
#define PASS_PARAMETERS(X) STRIP_PARENS( _Args X )
int main()
{
printf("without macro %d %d %d %d %d %d\n", (5,6,7,8,9,10) ); // This actually compiles, but it's WRONG
printf("with macro %d %d %d %d %d %d\n", PASS_PARAMETERS((5,6,7,8,9,10)) ); //Parameter "pack" enclosed in parenthesis
return 0;
}
Of course you could get creative by making the PASS_PARAMETERS macro into a variadic macro and pass in multiple parameter packs.
Only maybe removing parentheses:
If you need to strip one layer of parenthesis, but only if there are parenthesis to strip, this longer set of macros does the trick:
#define DEPAREN(X) ESC(ISH X)
#define ISH(...) ISH __VA_ARGS__
#define ESC(...) ESC_(__VA_ARGS__)
#define ESC_(...) VAN ## __VA_ARGS__
#define VANISH
This may be needed if you want to use MY_MACRO for different sets of datatypes:
#define MY_MACRO(a, b) DEPAREN(a), b
MY_MACRO( ({x, y, z}), text )
//> {x,y,z}, text
MY_MACRO( singlearg, text )
//> singlearg, text
How it works:
We start with DEPAREN(X) ESC(ISH X). If X has parenthesis, we get ESC(ISH(X)). If X does not have parenthesis, we get ESC(ISH X).
We then expand ESC(...) into ESC_(__VA_ARGS__), which expands the interior.
ISH(...) turns into ISH __VA_ARGS__, which strips one layer of parentheses from X. Now, regardless of whether or not X originally had parenthesis, we have ESC_(ISH X).
We now need to get rid of ISH. However, because we already defined ISH(...), we can't also define it as #define ISH . That's why we concatenate it with another token (VAN) to get VANISH X.
VANISH is defined as , so we are finally left with X, sans parentheses.
A simple hack could be to use variadic macros:
#define MY_MACRO(a, b...) ...
Then you can use it like:
MY_MACRO(text, A<int, double>)
The comma in the second argument is still interpreted as the argument separator (meaning the macro is actually called with three arguments), but it's expanded inside the macro, making the behavior the same. The variadic argument has to be last in the macro, however.
I see this interesting question here asking for the possibility of a program without main(). There, I saw eon giving one answer as follows, which works well in C/C++.
#include<stdio.h>
#define decode(s,t,u,m,p,e,d) m##s##u##t
#define begin decode(a,n,i,m,a,t,e)
int begin()
{
printf(" hello ");
}
Can someone explain how the above code works? Isn't really there a main() here or just hiding it from our eyes archly?
Have a close look at the macro: it just spliced together main from the characters in animate and gets them replaced for begin().
After the macro substitution:
#define decode(s,t,u,m,p,e,d) m##s##u##t
#define begin decode(a,n,i,m,a,t,e)
begin becomes decode(a,n,i,m,a,t,e), which then becomes main. There you have it.
The compiler doesn't see "begin" whatsoever. It's completely substituted by the time it gets to the compiler, because macros are simply text-substitutions. Perhaps a helpful diagram to add on to the other great answers.
#define decode(s,t,u,m,p,e,d) m##s##u##t
#define begin decode(a,n,i,m,a,t,e)
Take a look at m, and see where m is in the argument list.
decode(s,t,u,m,p,e,d)
^
|
decode(a,n,i,m,a,t,e)
Therefore the first letter is m => m. Then repeat the process, s => a, u => i, t => n.
decode(s,t,u,m,p,e,d)
^ ^ ^
| | |
decode(a,n,i,m,a,t,e)
Then the resulting letters are "pasted" together with token concatenation, and it looks like main as far as the compiler is concerned.
This works because the compiler doesn't really see int begin(){}, The preprocessor will replace begin with main after performing macro substitution and concatenation operator.
First The preprocessor will replace begin with decode(a,n,i,m,a,t,e), after that it will do a rescanning on the replacement list for further replacement, it will find function-like macro decode which will be replaced by it's replacement list after performing the concatenation operator, like this:
m##a##i##n => main
So the compiler will only see the preprocessor output which contain int main(){} and not int begin(){} thus legal code.
I am trying to do something like:
custommacro x;
which would expand into:
declareSomething; int x; declareOtherthing;
Is this even possible?
I already tricked it once with operator= to behave like that, but it can't be done with declarations.
You can elide the parentheses as long as you are willing to accept two additions:
the whole code needs to be wrapped in a block macro
there needs to be something following the echo directive
e.g. thusly:
#define LPAREN (
#define echo ECHO_MACRO LPAREN
#define done )
#define ECHO_MACRO(X) std::cout << (X) << "\n"
#define DSL(X) X
...
DSL(
echo "Look ma, no brains!" done;
)
...
Reasons for this:
There is no way to make a function-like macro expand without parentheses. This is just a basic requirement of the macro language; if you want something else investigate a different macro processor
Therefore, we need to insert the parentheses; in turn we need to have something after the directive, like a done macro, that will expand to a form containinf the necessary close paren
Unfortunately, because the echo ... done form didn't look like a macro invocation to the preprocessor, it wasn't marked for expansion when the preprocessor entered it, and whether we put parens in or not is irrelevant. Just using echo ... done will therefore dump an ECHO_MACRO call in the text
Text is re-scanned, marked for expansion, and expanded again when it is the argument to a function-like macro, so wrapping the entire block with a block macro (here it's DSL) will cause the call to ECHO_MACRO to be expanded on this rescan pass (DSL doesn't do anything with the result: it exists just to force the rescan)
We need to hide the ( in the expansion of echo behind the simple macro LPAREN, because otherwise the unmatched parenthesis in the macro body will confuse the preprocessor
If you wanted to create an entire domain-specific language for such commands, you could also reduce the number of done commands by making the core commands even more unwieldy:
#define LPAREN (
#define begin NO_OP LPAREN 0
#define done );
#define echo ); ECHO_MACRO LPAREN
#define write ); WRITE_MACRO LPAREN
#define add ); ADD_MACRO LPAREN
#define sub ); SUB_MACRO LPAREN
#define NO_OP(X)
#define ECHO_MACRO(X) std::cout << (X) << "\n"
#define WRITE_MACRO(X) std::cout << (X)
#define ADD_MACRO(D, L, R) (D) = (L) + (R)
#define SUB_MACRO(D, L, R) (D) = (L) - (R)
#define DSL(X) DSL_2 X
#define DSL_2(X) X
int main(void) {
int a, b;
DSL((
begin
add a, 42, 47
sub b, 64, 50
write "a is: "
echo a
write "b is: "
echo b
done
))
return 0;
}
In this form, each command is pre-designed to close the preceding command, so that only the last one needs a done; you need a begin line so that there's an open command for the first real operation to close, otherwise the parens will mismatch.
Messing about like this is much easier in C than in C++, as C's preprocessor is more powerful (it supports __VA_ARGS__ which are pretty much essential for complicated macro metaprogramming).
Oh yeah, and one other thing -
...please never do this in real code.
I understand what you're trying to do and it simply can't be done. A macro is only text replacement, it has no knowledge of what comes after it, so trying to do custommacro x will expand to whatever custommacro is, a space, and then x, which just won't work semantically.
Also, about your echo hack: this is actually very simple with the use of operators in C++:
#include <iostream>
#define echo std::cout <<
int main()
{
echo "Hello World!";
}
But you really shouldn't be writing code like this (that is, using macros and a psuedo-echo hack). You should write code that conforms to the syntax of the language and the semantics of what you're trying to do. If you want to write to standard output use std::cout. Moreover, if you want to use echo, make a function called echo that invokes std::cout internally, but don't hack the features of the language to create your own.
You could use for-loop and GnuC statement expression extension.
#define MY_MACRO\
FOR_MACRO(_uniq##__COUNTER__##name,{/*declareSomething*/ },{ /* declareOtherthing */ }) int
#define FOR_MACRO(NAME,FST_BLOCK,SND_BLOCK)\
for(int NAME = ({FST_BLOCK ;0;}); NAME<1 ; NAME++,(SND_BLOCK))
It's "practically hygienic", though this means that whatever you do inside those code blocks wont escape the for-loop scope.
#define STR1 "s"
#define STR2 "1"
#define STR3 STR1 ## STR2
Is it possible to concatenate STR1 and STR2, to "s1"?
You can do this by passing args to another Macro function. But is there a direct way?
If they're both strings you can just do:
#define STR3 STR1 STR2
This then expands to:
#define STR3 "s" "1"
and in the C language, separating two strings with space as in "s" "1" is exactly equivalent to having a single string "s1".
You don't need that sort of solution for string literals, since they are concatenated at the language level, and it wouldn't work anyway because "s""1" isn't a valid preprocessor token.
[Edit: In response to the incorrect "Just for the record" comment below that unfortunately received several upvotes, I will reiterate the statement above and observe that the program fragment
#define PPCAT_NX(A, B) A ## B
PPCAT_NX("s", "1")
produces this error message from the preprocessing phase of gcc: error: pasting ""s"" and ""1"" does not give a valid preprocessing token
]
However, for general token pasting, try this:
/*
* Concatenate preprocessor tokens A and B without expanding macro definitions
* (however, if invoked from a macro, macro arguments are expanded).
*/
#define PPCAT_NX(A, B) A ## B
/*
* Concatenate preprocessor tokens A and B after macro-expanding them.
*/
#define PPCAT(A, B) PPCAT_NX(A, B)
Then, e.g., both PPCAT_NX(s, 1) and PPCAT(s, 1) produce the identifier s1, unless s is defined as a macro, in which case PPCAT(s, 1) produces <macro value of s>1.
Continuing on the theme are these macros:
/*
* Turn A into a string literal without expanding macro definitions
* (however, if invoked from a macro, macro arguments are expanded).
*/
#define STRINGIZE_NX(A) #A
/*
* Turn A into a string literal after macro-expanding it.
*/
#define STRINGIZE(A) STRINGIZE_NX(A)
Then,
#define T1 s
#define T2 1
STRINGIZE(PPCAT(T1, T2)) // produces "s1"
By contrast,
STRINGIZE(PPCAT_NX(T1, T2)) // produces "T1T2"
STRINGIZE_NX(PPCAT_NX(T1, T2)) // produces "PPCAT_NX(T1, T2)"
#define T1T2 visit the zoo
STRINGIZE(PPCAT_NX(T1, T2)) // produces "visit the zoo"
STRINGIZE_NX(PPCAT(T1, T2)) // produces "PPCAT(T1, T2)"
Hint: The STRINGIZE macro above is cool, but if you make a mistake and its argument isn't a macro - you had a typo in the name, or forgot to #include the header file - then the compiler will happily put the purported macro name into the string with no error.
If you intend that the argument to STRINGIZE is always a macro with a normal C value, then
#define STRINGIZE(A) ((A),STRINGIZE_NX(A))
will expand it once and check it for validity, discard that, and then expand it again into a string.
It took me a while to figure out why STRINGIZE(ENOENT) was ending up as "ENOENT" instead of "2"... I hadn't included errno.h.