C++ template when the template's function is not the same - c++

Now I have a template class
template <class T>
class b
{
void someFunc() {
T t;
t.setB();
}
};
I know the template T only will be instantiated into 2 classes.
class D
{
public:
void setB();
};
class R
{
public:
void SetB();
};
As we can see, class D's function name setB is not the same as R's function SetB. So in template class b I cannot only just use setB. So is there some method if I cannot revise D or R? Can I add some wrapper or trick into the template class to solve this problem?

Maybe a trait class can help you:
struct Lower {};
struct Upper {};
// trait for most cases
template <typename T>
struct the_trait {
typedef Lower Type;
};
// trait for special cases
template <>
struct the_trait<R> {
typedef Upper Type;
};
template <class T>
class b {
public:
void foo() {
foo_dispatch(typename the_trait<T>::Type());
}
private:
void foo_dispatch(Lower) {
T t;
t.setB();
}
void foo_dispatch(Upper) {
T t;
t.SetB();
}
};
As #Arunmu pointed, this technique is also known as Tag Dispatching.

You can specialise your template for the class that has different semantics:
template<>
class b<R>
{
void doWork() {
R obj;
obj.SetB();
// or R::SetB() if it was a static method.
}
};

Instead of using self programmed traits you can also check for the existence of a function with SFINAE.
If you want to switch your called method only one of them must exist in each class. My method provided will not work if the check find more then one of the tested methods!
The following example is written for C++14 but can also be used with c++03 if you replace the new library functions with self implemented ones ( which is of course not convenient )
The testing class has_Foo and has_Bar can also be embedded in a preprocessor macro, but I wrote it expanded to makes the things easier to read.
How it works and why there are some more intermediate steps are necessary are explained in the comments. See below!
#include <iostream>
// First we write two classes as example. Both classes represents
// external code which you could NOT modify, so you need an
// adapter to use it from your code.
class A
{
public:
void Foo() { std::cout << "A::Foo" << std::endl; }
};
class B
{
public:
void Bar() { std::cout << "B::Bar" << std::endl; }
};
// To benefit from SFINAE we need two helper classes which provide
// a simple test functionality. The solution is quite easy...
// we try to get the return value of the function we search for and
// create a pointer from it and set it to default value nullptr.
// if this works the overloaded method `test` returns the data type
// one. If the first test function will not fit, we cat with ... all
// other parameters which results in getting data type two.
// After that we can setup an enum which evaluates `value` to
// boolean true or false regarding to the comparison function.
template <typename T>
class has_Foo
{
using one = char;
using two = struct { char a; char b;};
template <typename C> static one test( typename std::remove_reference<decltype(std::declval<C>().Foo())>::type* );
template <typename C> static two test( ... ) ;
public:
enum { value = sizeof(test<T>(0)) == sizeof(char) };
enum { Yes = sizeof(test<T>(0)) == sizeof(one) };
enum { No = !Yes };
};
template <typename T>
class has_Bar
{
using one = char;
using two = struct { char a; char b;};
template <typename C> static one test( typename std::remove_reference<decltype(std::declval<C>().Bar())>::type* );
template <typename C> static two test( ... ) ;
public:
enum { value = sizeof(test<T>(0)) == sizeof(char) };
enum { Yes = sizeof(test<T>(0)) == sizeof(one) };
enum { No = !Yes };
};
// Now in your adapter class you can use the test functions
// to find out which function exists. If your class
// contains a Foo function the first one compiles and if the
// the class contains a Bar function the second one fits. SFINAE
// disable the rest.
// We need a call helper here because SFINAE only
// fails "soft" if the template parameter can deduced from the
// given parameters to the call itself. So the method
// Call forwards the type to test "T" to the helper method as
// as explicit parameter. Thats it!
template <typename T>
class X: public T
{
public:
template < typename N, std::enable_if_t< has_Foo<N>::value>* = nullptr>
void Call_Helper() { this->Foo(); }
template < typename N, std::enable_if_t< has_Bar<N>::value>* = nullptr>
void Call_Helper() { this->Bar(); }
void Call() { Call_Helper<T>(); }
};
int main()
{
X<A> xa;
X<B> xb;
xa.Call();
xb.Call();
}

Related

How to specialize a non-templated-member function of a template class for multiple types?

I'm biting of my nails on the syntax required to partially specialize a member function for multiple types. Here is what I have:
#include <cstdint>
#include <string>
class Property
{
public:
virtual int read(uint8_t *) = 0;
};
template<typename T>
class PropertyValue
{
T value_;
public:
int read(uint8_t *);
};
// specialized for std::string
template<>
int PropertyValue<std::string>::read(uint8_t *buf) { /* put string-value to buf */}
Now I would want to specialize the read-function for different enum-types. I tried a combination of enable_if and is_same which looks promissing, then putting it inside the template-declaration (compiler told me there are now 2 template arguments whereas 1 was expected).
Putting it inside the class-definition was not working either. Outside ... well, here's what I currently have.
// specialize for some enums
template<typename T>
typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<T, enum Enum1>::value ||
std::is_same<T, enum Enum2>::value, int>::type
PropertyValue<T>::read(uint8_t *buf)
{
return encode_enum(buf, value_);
}
Where is my thinking wrong?
EDIT: Writing it like this compiles and works:
template<>
int PropertyValue<Enum 1>::read(uint8_t *buf)
{
return encode_enum(buf, value_);
}
template<>
int PropertyValue<Enum 2>::read(uint8_t *buf)
{
return encode_enum(buf, value_);
}
PropertyValue::value itself is not a template. It's not a template class, it's not a template function. It's a member of a template class, which is not the same thing as being a template itself.
You have to specialize the entire class.
template<>
class PropertyValue<std::string>
{
std::string value_;
public:
int read(uint8_t *)
{
// Your specialization goes here.
}
};
Even if read() itself was a template, you must still specialize its class, before you can specialize a template class's template member.
Of course, if your template class has many other members and methods, every one of them have to be specialized here, leading to plenty of code getting duplicated. At that point, you will be faced with several options for refactoring out that duplicated code. The best approach for that depends on the particular details.
But that's how it's done...
EDIT: one common approach is to use a helper template class:
template<typename T> class PropertyValue; // Forward declaration
template<typename T> class do_read {
public:
static int do_it( PropertyValue<T> &me, uint8_t *p )
{
// your default implementation
}
};
template<> class do_read<std::string> {
public:
static int do_it( PropertyValue<std::string> &me, uint8_t *p )
{
// your specialization
}
};
template<typename T>
class PropertyValue
{
T value_;
public:
int read(uint8_t *p)
{
return do_read<T>::do_it(*this, p);
}
};

How does one specialize a template for all non-array types?

Let's say I have a template my_type. I want it to have general functionality, to have a few extra functions when T is not an array and to have others when T is an array.
Let's say I have the following template:
template <typename T>
class my_class<T> {
public:
int f1(); // This function is available for all T
int f2(); // This function is available when T is not an array
int f3(); // This function is available when T is an array
}
So if I try:
my_class<int> c1; my_class<int[3]> c2;
c1.f1(); c2.f1(); // both fine
c1.f2(); c2.f3(); // both fine
c1.f3(); c2.f2(); // both should give a compile error
I am aware std::unique_ptr does this internally. So how does it do it?
Another way, using enable_if. Note also the use of a base class to capture all common behaviour.
#include <type_traits>
template<class T>
struct my_base
{
int f1();
};
template<class T, typename Enable = void>
class my_class;
template<class T>
class my_class<T, std::enable_if_t<std::is_array<T>::value>>
: public my_base<T>
{
public:
int f3(); // This function is available when T is an array
};
template <typename T>
class my_class<T, std::enable_if_t<not std::is_array<T>::value>>
: public my_base<T>
{
public:
int f2(); // This function is available when T is not an array
};
int main()
{
auto a = my_class<int[]>();
a.f1();
// a.f2();
a.f3();
auto na = my_class<int>();
na.f1();
na.f2();
// na.f3();
}
I have figured it out myself. The following code will do the exact thing I have asked for.
template<typename T>
class my_class {
public:
int f1() { return 1; }
int f2() { return 2; }
};
template<typename T>
class my_class<T[]> {
public:
int f1() { return 1; }
int f3() { return 3; }
};
Note that the implementation of the common function (f1) had to be copied. Now is there a way to use a single implementation? (note that it is NOT as simple as a return 1; like in the example code and thus I can't separate functionality into a non-template function)

Class template, member function definition if object is of type X?

Is it possible to create a class template with a member function definition only if the object created is of a specific type?
I've created a template class I will use for storing either int or doubles, but for doubles I would like to be able to set precision too (objects created with myclass < double> should have this functionality, but for myclass< int> there is no need for that to be present at all).
I know I can use a base class template, and create new classes "myInt", "myDouble" using that and implement the functionality only in the myDouble class, but I think it would be cleaner to define the functionality (both the function and a member variable) for doubles in the class template, if that's possible and preferable?
Let's add an example to show what I want to do:
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
class commonBase{
public:
void setState(int state);
virtual void print() = 0;
private:
int _my_state;
};
template <typename T>
class generalObject : public commonBase {
public:
void value(T value);
void print(){ std::cout << "My value: " << _my_value << std::endl; }
private:
T _my_value;
};
template <typename T>
void generalObject<T>::value(T value){
_my_value = value;
}
// Is there any way do specialize only only whats different from the generalObject template?
// Here I thought I could specialize the case where a generalObject is created of <double>, but
// when I do, nothing is derived from generalObject (or at least not visible as far as I can tell)
template<>
class generalObject<double>{
public:
void setPrecision(int precision){ _my_precision = precision; }
// here I would like a special implementation of print(), which overrides the print() in generalObject
// and instead also prints according to the precision set when the object is of <double> type.
// Row below an example which doesn't work (compiler error, _my_value undefined)
void print(){ std::cout << "My value: " << std::setprecision(_my_precision) << _my_value << std::endl; }
private:
int _my_precision;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
generalObject<int> o1;
o1.value(1);
o1.print();
o1.setState(1); //inherited from the commonBase
generalObject<double> o2;
o2.setPrecision(2);
o2.value(2); //here value isn't available (compile error)
o2.print();
o2.setState(123); //also isn't available (compile error)
}
Sure.
template <typename T> class Poly;
void set_precision(Poly<double>* self, int a) {};
If you really want dot notation you can then add:
template <typename T> class Poly {
public: void set_precision(int a){::set_precision(this,a);}
...
However I think you should think about what you're trying to accomplish. If MyInt and MyDouble have different fields and different methods and different implementations, they should probably be different classes.
This can be solved using template specialization.
We first define a common template...
template< typename T >
struct myclass
{
// common stuff
};
... and specialize that for double:
template<>
struct myclass<double>
{
int precision = 10;
void setprecision( int p ){ precision = p; }
};
Now the setprecision() method can only be called for myclass<double>. The compiler will complain if we try to call it for anything else, like myclass<int>.
int main()
{
myclass<double> d;
d.setprecision( 42 ); // compiles
myclass<int> i;
i.setprecision( 42 ); // fails to compile, as expected
}
Demo.
The basic way to have a member function of a class template exist only for some template parameters is to create a specialization of the class template for those template parameters.
template<typename T>class X{
// general definition
};
template<>class X<double>{
// double-specific definition
};
The downside of this is that the specialization will need to duplicate anything that is common. One way to address this is to move the common things out to a base class template:
template<typename T>class Xcommon{
// common stuff
};
template<typename T>class X: public Xcommon<T>{
// general definition
};
template<>class X<double>: public Xcommon<double>{
// double-specific definition
};
Alternatively, you can do it the other way: put the common stuff in the derived class, and the extras in the base, and specialize the base:
template<typename T>class Xextras{
// empty by default
};
template<typename T>class X: public Xextras<T>{
// common definition
};
template<>class Xextras<double>{
// double-specific definition
};
Either way can work; which is better depends on the details.
Both these methods work for data members and member functions.
Alternatively, you can use enable_if to mean that member functions are not selected by overload resolution if the template parameter doesn't meet a required condition. This requires that the member function is itself a template.
template<typename T>class X{
template<typename U=T> // make it a template,
std::enable_if<std::is_same_v<U,double>> double_specific_function(){
// do stuff
}
};
I wouldn't recommend this option unless there is no other choice.
If the question is about a member function, then here is one of the ways to do it without class template specialization:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename T>
struct Type {
template <typename U = T,
typename = typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, double>::value>::type>
void only_for_double() {
std::cout << "a doubling" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
Type<int> n;
Type<double> d;
// n.only_for_double(); // does not compile.
d.only_for_double();
}
Example on ideone.com
If you require a data-member presence based on the template parameter, you will have to do some kind of specialization, in which case it is, probably, simpler to put the function into corresponding specialization.
EDIT: After OP made his question more specific
Here is one way to do it without extra class and getting rid of virtual functions. Hope it helps.
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
template <typename T, typename Derived = void>
class commonBase {
public:
void setState(int state) {
_my_state = state;
}
void value(T value) {
_my_value = value;
}
template <typename U = Derived,
typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, void>::value,
void * >::type = nullptr>
void print() const {
std::cout << "My value: " << _my_value << std::endl;
}
template <typename U = Derived,
typename std::enable_if<!std::is_same<U, void>::value,
void * >::type = nullptr>
void print() const {
static_cast<Derived const *>(this)->_print();
}
protected:
T _my_value;
int _my_state;
};
template <typename T>
class generalObject : public commonBase<T> {
};
template<>
class generalObject<double> : public commonBase<double, generalObject<double>> {
private:
friend commonBase<double, generalObject<double>>;
void _print() const {
std::cout << "My value: " << std::setprecision(_my_precision) <<
_my_value << std::endl;
}
public:
void setPrecision(int precision){ _my_precision = precision; }
private:
int _my_precision;
};
int main(){
generalObject<int> o1;
o1.value(1);
o1.print();
o1.setState(1);
generalObject<double> o2;
o2.setPrecision(2);
o2.value(1.234);
o2.print();
o2.setState(123);
}
Same code on ideone.com

C++ - Template Specialization & Partial Specialization

I have been looking all over the internet and stackoverflow for a concrete answer but I can't seem to find one. I have to create a generic class and then implement specific functions. My specific instructions were: You need to make use of Template Expression Parameters and Template Class Specialization and Partial Specialization.
I have a template class:
template <class T, int x, int y>
class Z {
T **array[x][y];
public:
Z();
void print();
//and other methods
};
I need to:
1) Only Z's where x= 2 and y = 2 need to have a public method void J()
2) For char Z's of x = 2 and y= 2 J will do something; for everything else it does something else
3) For only Z's where T is char will the array be initialized to some value. For everything else it's 0
Naturally, this works:
template<class T, int x, int y>
Z<T,x,y>::Z<T,x,y>() { //initialize to 0 }
But this doesn't:
template<int x, int y>
Z<char,x,y>::Z<char,x,y>() { //initialize to something}
And likewise (assume J exists) this does not work:
template <class T>
void Z<T,2,2>::J() { //something }
My question is:
Is there any simple method for implementing the above items? I need to keep all the other methods in Z. Giving a hint or pointing in the right direction (maybe I missed a question since there are a lot) would be helpful.
Thanks.
It seems you want to define only some functions of some specializations : if print() does not change between the char specialization and the general case, it seems that you don't want to redefine it.
// What you want to do (illegal in C++)
template<int,typename T>
struct Z
{
T myValue;
Z();
void print() { /* ... */ }
};
template<int i, typename T>
Z<i,T>::Z() { /* ... */ }
template<int i>
Z<i,char>::Z() { /* ... */ }
However, it does not work like this. Partial or full specializations of class have almost nothing in common, except 'prototype' of template parameters:
// The two following types have only two things related: the template parameter is an int,
// and the second type is a full specialization of the first. There are no relations between
// the content of these 2 types.
template<int> struct A {};
template<> struct A<42> { void work(); };
You have to declare and define each (partial) specialization:
// Fixed example
template<int,typename T>
struct Z
{
T myValue;
Z();
void print() { /* ... */ }
};
template<int i, typename T>
Z<i,T>::Z() { /* ... */ }
// Specialization for <all-ints,char>
template<int i>
struct Z<i,char>
{
char myValue;
char othervalue;
Z();
void print() { /* Same code than for the general case */ }
};
template<int i>
Z<i,char>::Z() { /* ... */ }
The only way to escape the code duplication is by using inheritance of traits:
// Example with the print function
template<typename T>
struct print_helper
{
void print() { /* ... */ }
};
// Fixed example
template<int,typename T>
struct Z : public print_helper<T>
{
T myValue;
Z();
};
template<int i, typename T>
Z<i,T>::Z() { /* ... */ }
// Specialization for <all-ints,char>
template<int i>
struct Z<i,char> : public print_helper<char>
{
char myValue;
char othervalue;
Z();
};
template<int i>
Z<i,char>::Z() { /* ... */ }
You cannot do what you want without duplication for the moment (the feature removing code duplication is static if and has been proposed for the next C++ standard, see n3322 and n3329).
You may have a look at this course http://channel9.msdn.com/Series/C9-Lectures-Stephan-T-Lavavej-Core-C-/Stephan-T-Lavavej-Core-C-5-of-n
While this is not possible that you define partial specialization for function templates, you can define partial specialization for class or struct template.
template<typename T> struct helper {
static void doThingy(){}
};
template<typename X> struct helper<X*> {
static void doThingy(){}
};
Helper(double*)::doThingy();
In this example, you want to specialize behavior in doThingy() only when the type in template is a pointer type. You cannot use overload of method doThingy() in this case. This is because you cannot overload a function with no arguments. But you can have partial specialization of the struct helper. In specialized template, you implemented wished behavior for the doThingy().

Check if template argument is inherited from class

I want to check if the type given to a template is inherited from a base class in my project.
It should work like one would expect it from the following example:
template< class T : public CBaseClass >
Is it possible to do this with templates, if not, how else can I do it?
Following an example from Stroustrup:
template<class Test, class Base>
struct AssertSameOrDerivedFrom {
AssertSameOrDerivedFrom() { &constraints; }
public:
static void constraints() {
Test *pd = 0;
Base *pb = pd;
}
};
template<class T>
struct YourClass {
YourClass() {
AssertSameOrDerivedFrom<T, CBaseClass>();
}
};
In C++0x, this becomes:
template<class T>
struct YourClass {
static_assert(std::is_base_of<CBaseClass, T>::value);
};
You can use boost::is_base_and_derived from Boost, combined with BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT. If you are using a compiler with TR1 or C++0x support, there are equivalents of those constructs in the standard library (std::is_base_of, and the static_assert statement in C++0x).
If you want to assert, do it Nurk's way. If you want to check, use is_base_of from boost or C++0x. If you can't use either of those, use SFINAE:
template < typename Base, typename PotentialDerived >
struct is_base
{
typedef char (&no) [1];
typedef char (&yes) [2];
static yes check(Base*);
static no check(...);
enum { value = sizeof(check(static_cast<PotentialDerived*>(0))) == sizeof(yes) };
};
The simplest solution seems to be std::is_base_of:
static_assert(std::is_base_of_v<CBaseClass, T>);
You can of course also use it in combination with if constexpr:
if constexpr (std::is_base_of_v<CBaseClass, T>) {
//
} else {
//
}
See cppreference for more details:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/is_base_of
Shorter is better:
template <typename Base, typename Derived>
struct is_base {
constexpr static bool check(Base*) { return true; }
constexpr static bool check(...) { return false; }
enum { value = check(static_cast<Derived*>(0)) };
};
Example 1:
struct A {};
struct B : A { };
int main(void) {
static_assert(is_base<A,B>::value, "If Error: A is not base of B");
}
Example 2:
template <bool, typename T=void>
struct Use {
static std::string info() { return "Implementation that consider that A is not base of B"; }
};
template <typename T>
struct Use<true,T> {
static std::string info() { return "Implementation that consider that A is the base of B"; }
};
int main(void) {
std::cout << Use<is_base<A,B>::value>::info(); //Implementation that consider that A is the base of B
}