I am trying to understand a piece of code of C++11.
A class contains 2 functions as shown below:
class abc
{
public:
void integerA(int x);
template<typename typ>
void integerA(typ x);
};
I am unable to understand benefit of declaring 2 same functions. Why not declare only one template function?
Only one benefit I can assume is we know int data type which can be passed to this function. This might be little faster. But for this, do we really need to create a separate function with int data type?
The main reason to do something like this is to specialize void integerA(int x) to do something else. That is, if the programmer provides as input argument an int to member function abc::integerA then because of the C++ rules instead of instantiating the template member function the compiler would pick void integerA(int x) because concrete functions are preferred when possible instead of instantiating a template version.
A more straightforward way to do this would be to specialize the template member function in the following manner:
class abc
{
public:
template<typename typ>
void integerA(typ x);
};
template<typename typ>
void abc::integerA(typ x) {
...
}
template<>
void abc::integerA(int x) {
...
}
LIVE DEMO
Related
We all know, what is template. Strongly speaking, it is a part of code which is checked for errors only when a copy of it was used and all the arguments where set.
We also know, that the arguments of template must be constant-value expressions. So we cant use variables as the arguments for the template.
But we can see that when template is compiled, the code responsible for it is like copied with the arguments pasted on formal parameters.
Can we use a part of a code as an argument of a template?
For example we have:
template<bool arg>
class foo
{
bool val;
public:
foo() : val(arg) {};
}
Everething is ok, thats works well as arg is an constant value.
But, I want't to use a static part of code, pasted to the template like this:
class foo
{
int a,b,c;
public:
foo() : a(0),b(0),c(0)
{};
foo(int an, int bn, int cn) : a(an),b(bn),c(cn)
{};
template<partOfCode cond>
bool foo_check()
{
if(cond) return true;
else return false;
};
};
int main(char* args, char** argv)
{
foo foovar;
foovar.foo_check<this->a==0>();
//or
foovar.foo_check<a==3>();
};
Of course I get the errors trying to do like this. But if really paste a part of argument code to the template on its place, there will be no any syntax errors at least.
Somebody can answer, that I can use define directive. But that will not help, as template and preprocessor are independent.
Is there a way to implement something like this?
Templates don't copy text like macros do, so you're:
trying to reference this in non-member function
trying to access inaccessible variable
trying to instantiate template with run-time value instead of compile-time constant
You'll have to pass a function:
template <typename FunctionToCall>
bool foo_check(FunctionToCall func)
{
return func(); // simplified
};
// this is how you call it with lambda function
foovar.foo_check([&]{ return foovar.get_a() == 0; }); // still have to provide an accessor, or make a friend function instead
The hell with the template, if you need just function for a condition, you can do
bool foo_check(std::function<bool()> const& func)
{
return func(); // at this point, isn't foo_check useless?
}
Say I have a template:
template <typename T>
class foo{
void (T::bar*)(int);
public:
void setMethod(void (T::*)(int) f)
};
Is there a way to use a non-member function with this template?
I've tried:
foo<void>().setMethod(&func);
foo<nullptr_t>().setMethod(&func);
No, it's not possible.
The precise nature of a useful workaround depends on the nature of the problem, but it'll most likely involve std::function and std::bind (or lambdas). In very general terms, the trick is usually to rewrite foo in such a manner that it does not have to care about the kind of function that is bound to it (which is what std::function is for).
One way this might be done is
template <typename T>
class foo{
public:
// Here we do not care about the type of function we're binding
template<typename Func>
void setMethod(Func f) { func_ = f; }
void callMethod(T &obj) { func_(obj); }
private:
// only about its signature
std::function<void(T&)> func_;
};
Given a type
struct A {
void foo();
void bar(int);
};
and a function
void qux(A &);
It is later possible to do any of
Foo<A> f;
f.setMethod(&A::foo);
f.setMethod(qux);
f.setMethod(std::bind(&A::bar, std::placeholders::_1, 2));
f.setMethod([](A &obj) { obj.foo(); });
Or indeed to call setMethod with anything that has an operator() accepting an A&.
In the event that Liskov substitution is required (which is the case for OP), this will not work because foo cannot offer an interface depending on the template arguments in a common base class. Then two options remain:
If the object the function is to be called on can be bound at the same time as the function, it is possible to make foo a class, have it store a std::function<void()> and shove a std::bind(&SomeClass::memberfunction, SomeObject) into it.
Otherwise, the best you're going to get without very evil hackery is limiting yourself to a common base class of what would have been T arguments to foo.
If your needs go beyond that, you're attempting to stretch the limits of the C++ type system and should probably reconsider your design.
Please refer to the below code
Specialized function in non specialized Template class
Is it possible to write a specialized function foo, for non specialized template class MyClass [Line Number 7] ? If yes, then, what is the syntax for the same.
Regards,
Atul
This can be done if you create a full specialization of the class template. Just refer to the answer in this question: If I want to specialise just one method in a template, how do I do it?
Otherwise if you want to have a given function with the same signature have two different behaviors depending on the instantiated version of the class, and that instantiation is a partial specialization of the template class, you will have to make a separate specialization of the template class.
Keep in mind that if you want to avoid redundant code in this second case, you can always create a base template class that will have the functionality that will not change, and then create derived template classes that will contain the unique functionality necessary for each partial specialization.
Look at my example below, I have tried answer your question (if I guessed right) in the simplest code possible by me:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template<typename T>
class Some
{
public:
template<typename U> void foo(U val);
};
template<typename T>
template<typename U>
void Some<T>::foo(U val)
{
cout << "Non specialized" << endl;
}
template<>
template<>
void Some<char>::foo(char val)
{
cout << "Char specialized" << endl;
}
int main()
{
Some<int> t1;
t1.foo(5);
Some<char> t2;
t2.foo('c');
return 0;
}
The important thing to note here is that "You cannot specialize your class and function Independently" i.e you have to specialize both at the same time as done in the example.
Also, with this you lose the opportunity to specialize your class for that data type "char" in this case. (Need to confirm on this).
UPDATE :: Confirmed on point 2.
If you wanted to specialize MyClass< bool >::Foo, it would look like this:
template <>
void MyClass<bool>::Foo(bool A)
{
// code goes here
}
If you are asking that,
(1) you want a function Foo() which doesn't take any argument and
returns void inside MyClass
(2) This Foo() should be exclusive to the MyClass when the
template type is bool, i.e. only for MyClass<bool>
then here is the way:
template<class Precision>
class MyClass {
...
public:
...
void Foo (); // don't implement here
};
...
template<>
void MyClass<bool>::Foo () // implementing only for 'MyClass<bool>'
{ // invoking for other 'MyClass<>' will result in compiler error
...
}
I would like to have several different function definitions for a member function in a templated class. Something like this:
template <typename T>
class MyClass
{
void Foo();
T val;
//other functionality and data
};
//handles all types
template <typename T>
void MyClass<T>::Foo()
{
return val;
}
//handles a special type in a different way
template <>
void MyClass<float>::Foo()
{
return val + 5.0f;
}
I've tried implementing this as above and get a linker error for every special type I try to explicitly instantiate. The linker error mentions that the function has already been previously defined. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places but I couldn't find any resources to help me figure out this problem :(
Q. Is this possible? If so, how do you do this and why does it work?
Thanks!
Here is a workaround that I frequently use. As it as been said before, you have to specialize the complete template. The idea is to make the method you want to specialize a static member of some struct (that should be nested and private for encapsulation reasons). Like this:
template< typename T >
class MyClass {
struct PerformFoo {
static void doFoo () {
std::cout << "Foo for general type" << std::endl;;
}
};
public:
void Foo () {
PerformFoo::doFoo();
}
};
template<>
struct MyClass< float >::PerformFoo {
static void doFoo () {
std::cout << "Foo for float" << std::endl;;
}
};
Now in your main, the code
MyClass< int > myInt;
myInt.Foo();
MyClass< float > myFloat;
myFloat.Foo();
prints
Foo for general type
Foo for float
on your terminal. By the way: this does not involve any performance penalty with modern compilers. Hope this helps you.
By defining the specialized member function as inline function you will get rid of the link error complaining the specialized member function having been defined elsewhere.
//handles a special type in a different way
template <>
inline void
MyClass<float>::Foo()
{
return val + 5.0f;
}
The reason being that a specialized function is no longer a function template, but a concrete function. Therefor it will be compiled several times when compiling source files that includes this header file which is why you get the "already defined" error.
Another solution is to move the implementation of the specialized function out of the header file and put it into the source file, meanwhile, declare the specialized function in the header file. Note that the declaration of the specialized member function must stay outside of the class definition:
/// Declare the specialized function in the header file but outside the
/// class definition.
template <> void MyClass<float>::Foo()
/// Define the specialized function in .cpp file:
template <>
void
MyClass<float>::Foo()
{
return val + 5.0f;
}
I've tried implementing this as above and get a linker error for every special type I try to explicitly instantiate.
What does that mean? If you explicitly specialize the template you cannot explicitly instantiate it anymore for the same template arguments. The whole purpose of an explicit specialization is to prevent the instantiation of it (which is a generated specialization) in favor of your explicit specialization.
So your description does not make sense to me. Just remember that you need to put definitions of templates and member functions of class templates in the header instead of in the .cpp file if you want to instantiate them implicitly. And that explicit specializations need to be declared to everyone who uses their template with their arguments.
// put this specialization into the header, for everyone to see
template <> void MyClass<float>::Foo();
It is not possible. When you specialize a template, you must specialize the entire template, which in this case means the entire class.
You can make foo a template function inside the template class. It is not exactly the same as what you are asking for, but it might meet your needs.
Update:
template<typename T> class Foo {
public:
template<typename R> void foo() {printf("This is foo\n");}
template<> void foo<float>() {printf("This is foo<float>\n");}
};
Or:
template<typename T> class Foo {
public:
template<typename R> void foo() {printf("This is foo\n");}
//template<> void foo<float>() {printf("This is foo<float>\n");}
};
template<> template<> void Foo<float>::foo<float>() {
printf("This is foo<float>\n");
}
along with:
int main(int argc,char * argv[])
{
Foo<int> iFoo;
iFoo.foo<int>();
Foo<float> fFoo;
fFoo.foo<float>();
return 0;
}
generates:
This is foo
This is foo<float>
The syntax for calling foo is a bit awkward.
I am trying to write a code that calls a class method given as template parameter. To simplify, you can suppose the method has a single parameter (of an arbitrary type) and returns void. The goal is to avoid boilerplate in the calling site by not typing the parameter type. Here is a code sample:
template <class Method> class WrapMethod {
public:
template <class Object>
Param* getParam() { return ¶m_; }
Run(Object* obj) { (object->*method_)(param_); }
private:
typedef typename boost::mpl::at_c<boost::function_types::parameter_types<Method>, 1>::type Param;
Method method_;
Param param_
};
Now, in the calling site, I can use the method without ever writing the type of the parameter.
Foo foo;
WrapMethod<BOOST_TYPEOF(&Foo::Bar)> foo_bar;
foo_bar.GetParam()->FillWithSomething();
foo_bar.Run(foo);
So, this code works, and is almost what I want. The only problem is that I want to get rid of the BOOST_TYPEOF macro call in the calling site. I would like to be able to write something like WrapMethod<Foo::Bar> foo_bar instead of WrapMethod<BOOST_TYPEOF(&Foo::Bar)> foo_bar.
I suspect this is not possible, since there is no way of referring to a method signature other than using the method signature itself (which is a variable for WrapMethod, and something pretty large to type at the calling site) or getting the method pointer and then doing typeof.
Any hints on how to fix these or different approaches on how to avoid typing the parameter type in the calling site are appreciated.
Just to clarify my needs: the solution must not have the typename Param in the calling site. Also, it cannot call FillWithSomething from inside WrapMethod (or similar). Because that method name can change from Param type to Param type, it needs to live in the calling site. The solution I gave satisfies both these constraints, but needs the ugly BOOST_TYPEOF in the calling site (using it inside WrapMethod or other indirection would be fine since that is code my api users won't see as long as it is correct).
Response:
As far as I can say, there is no possible solution. This boil down to the fact that is impossible to write something like WrapMethod<&Foo::Bar>, if the signature of Bar is not known in advance, even though only the cardinality is necessary. More generally, you can't have template parameters that take values (not types) if the type is not fixed. For example, it is impossible to write something like typeof_literal<0>::type which evalutes to int and typeof_literal<&Foo::Bar>::type, which would evaluate to void (Foo*::)(Param) in my example. Notice that neither BOOST_TYPEOF or decltype would help because they need to live in the caling site and can't be buried deeper in the code. The legitimate but invalid syntax below would solve the problem:
template <template<class T> T value> struct typeof_literal {
typedef decltype(T) type;
};
In C++0x, as pointed in the selected response (and in others using BOOST_AUTO), one can use the auto keyword to achieve the same goal in a different way:
template <class T> WrapMethod<T> GetWrapMethod(T) { return WrapMethod<T>(); }
auto foo_bar = GetWrapMethod(&Foo::Bar);
Write it as:
template <typename Object, typename Param, void (Object::*F)(Param)>
class WrapMethod {
public:
Param* getParam() { return ¶m_; }
void Run(Object* obj) { (obj->*F)(param_); }
private:
Param param_;
};
and
Foo foo;
WrapMethod<Foo, Param, &Foo::Bar> foo_bar;
foo_bar.getParam()->FillWithSomething();
foo_bar.Run(foo);
EDIT: Showing a template function allowing to do the same thing without any special template wrappers:
template <typename Foo, typename Param>
void call(Foo& obj, void (Foo::*f)(Param))
{
Param param;
param.FillWithSomthing();
obj.*f(param);
}
and use it as:
Foo foo;
call(foo, &Foo::Bar);
2nd EDIT: Modifying the template function to take the initialization function as a parameter as well:
template <typename Foo, typename Param>
void call(Foo& obj, void (Foo::*f)(Param), void (Param::*init)())
{
Param param;
param.*init();
obj.*f(param);
}
and use it as:
Foo foo;
call(foo, &Foo::Bar, &Param::FillWithSomething);
If your compiler supports decltype, use decltype:
WrapMethod<decltype(&Foo::Bar)> foo_bar;
EDIT: or, if you really want to save typing and have a C++0x compliant compiler:
template <class T> WrapMethod<T> GetWrapMethod(T) { return WrapMethod<T>(); }
auto foo_bar= GetWrapMethod(&Foo::Bar);
EDIT2: Although, really, if you want it to look pretty you either have to expose users to the intricacies of the C++ language or wrap it yourself in a preprocessor macro:
#define WrapMethodBlah(func) WrapMethod<decltype(func)>
Have you considered using method templates?
template <typename T> void method(T & param)
{
//body
}
Now the compiler is able to implicitly determine parameter type
int i;
bool b;
method(i);
method(b);
Or you can provide type explicitly
method<int>(i);
You can provide specializations for different data types
template <> void method<int>(int param)
{
//body
}
When you are already allowing BOOST_TYEPOF(), consider using BOOST_AUTO() with an object generator function to allow type deduction:
template<class Method> WrapMethod<Method> makeWrapMethod(Method mfp) {
return WrapMethod<Method>(mfp);
}
BOOST_AUTO(foo_bar, makeWrapMethod(&Foo::Bar));
Okay let's have a go at this.
First of all, note that template parameter deduction is available (as noted in a couple of answers) with functions.
So, here is an implementation (sort of):
// WARNING: no virtual destructor, memory leaks, etc...
struct Foo
{
void func(int e) { std::cout << e << std::endl; }
};
template <class Object>
struct Wrapper
{
virtual void Run(Object& o) = 0;
};
template <class Object, class Param>
struct Wrap: Wrapper<Object>
{
typedef void (Object::*member_function)(Param);
Wrap(member_function func, Param param): mFunction(func), mParam(param) {}
member_function mFunction;
Param mParam;
virtual void Run(Object& o) { (o.*mFunction)(mParam); }
};
template <class Object, class Param>
Wrap<Object,Param>* makeWrapper(void (Object::*func)(Param), Param p = Param())
{
return new Wrap<Object,Param>(func, p);
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
Foo foo;
Wrap<Foo,int>* fooW = makeWrapper(&Foo::func);
fooW->mParam = 1;
fooW->Run(foo);
Wrapper<Foo>* fooW2 = makeWrapper(&Foo::func, 1);
fooW2->Run(foo);
return 0;
}
I think that using a base class is the native C++ way of hiding information by type erasure.