Transforming mpl vector with own function - c++

I want to multiply each element in an mpl::vector by an int.
First, a metafunction to multiply an int_ with an int.
template <int i>
struct multiply_scalar
{
template<typename T> struct apply
{
typedef int_<(T::value * i)> type;
};
};
Here are the calls I want to make.
typedef vector<int_<3>, int_<4> > my_vec;
typedef typename transform< my_vec, multiply_scalar<2> >::type my_vec_2;
typedef vector<int_<6>, int_<8> > my_vec_3;
BOOST_MPL_ASSERT(( boost::is_same< my_vec_2, my_vec_3 > )); //Fails
//type of my_vec2 is: boost::mpl::v_item<mpl_::int_<8>, boost::mpl::v_item<mpl_::int_<6>, boost::mpl::vector0<mpl_::na>, 0>, 0>
Why isn't the resulting vector simply a vector<int_<6>, int_<8>>? Am I holding it wrong? Probably the metafunction or the transform is not applied in the right way.

Mainly because of some implementation issues in C++03, the writers of the MPL
had to use non-obvious techniques for representing sequences, one of which is
the usage of types like
boost::mpl::vector0<>
boost::mpl::vector1<T>
boost::mpl::vector2<T, U>
... etc
Instead of simply writing
boost::mpl::vector<>
boost::mpl::vector<T>
boost::mpl::vector<T, U>
as one would do with variadic templates in C++11 and beyond. Another technique
is to create some kind of reverse linked list when you insert stuff in a vector,
which is what you're looking at in your example:
boost::mpl::v_item<mpl_::int_<8>, // 2nd element
boost::mpl::v_item<mpl_::int_<6>, // 1st element
boost::mpl::vector0<mpl_::na>, 0>, 0> // empty list
Because of this, the documentation
for boost::mpl::transform does not specify exactly what is the type of boost::mpl::transform<s,op,in>::type.
Actually, it only guarantees that it's a type equivalent to
typedef lambda<op>::type f;
typedef lambda<in::operation>::type in_op;
typedef fold<
s
, in::state
, bind< in_op, _1, bind<f, _2> >
>::type r; // <-- the return type is equivalent to this r
This probably does not help you unless you already know the MPL well enough that
you don't ask questions on SO about it ;-), so basically it means that it returns
a new type that's like a boost::mpl::vector, except for its actual type which may
be anything like I showed above. In particular, this type is guaranteed to be a model
of the Forward Sequence concept.
When you use boost::is_same<T, U>, you're actually asking whether T and U
are precisely the same types. You should now see clearly why this is not what
you actually want. Instead, you want to do some kind of deep comparison of those
two sequences, which both represent vectors. To check whether two Forward
Sequences are equal, you must use the boost::mpl::equal
algorithm instead. The following will work:
#include <boost/mpl/assert.hpp>
#include <boost/mpl/equal.hpp>
#include <boost/mpl/int.hpp>
#include <boost/mpl/transform.hpp>
#include <boost/mpl/vector.hpp>
using namespace boost::mpl;
template <int i>
struct multiply_scalar
{
template<typename T> struct apply
{
typedef int_<(T::value * i)> type;
};
};
typedef vector<int_<3>, int_<4> > my_vec;
typedef transform< my_vec, multiply_scalar<2> >::type my_vec_2;
typedef vector<int_<6>, int_<8> > my_vec_3;
BOOST_MPL_ASSERT(( boost::mpl::equal< my_vec_2, my_vec_3 > ));

Related

C++11 enable_if on return type of subscript operator of template parameter

I'm working with vector classes containing either integer or floating point types. I'd like to choose one or the other function template accordingly, but the only way to deduce the type is through the subscript operator [].
Is there a way to use enable_if<is_integral< ... on the return type of the [] operator of the template parameter?
Something like:
template<class V, typename enable_if<is_integral<V::operator[]>::value, int>::type = 0>
int MyFunc(V vec)
{ return vec[0]; }
template<class V, typename enable_if<!is_integral<V::operator[]>::value, int>::type = 0>
int MyFunc(V vec)
{ return ceil(vec[0]); }
Some general suggestion
I would avoid using namespace std which your code implies (almost) that you use.
You can shorten and make more readable std::enable_if<T>::type and std::is_integral<T>::value by writing them as std::enable_if_t<T> and std::is_integral_v<T> respectively (search for "Helper types" here, for instance).
The answer to your question
You need to apply operator[] to something
What you really want to ask is if the items in the object of type V can be accessed via [], so you want to check whether something like V{}[0] is valid, so you would write something like this (as to why std::decay_t is needed, see note (¹)):
template<class V, typename std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral_v<std::decay_t<decltype(V{}[0])>>, int> = false>
But V might be not default constructible
If you want to support types V without assuming that they are default constructible you can use std::declval to "pretend" you create a value of that type (here std::decay_t is needed for the same reason as above):
template<class V, typename std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral_v<std::decay_t<decltype(std::declval<V>()[0])>>, int> = false>
And operator[] could return some proxy to the actual entities in V
In general operator[] doesn't return an object of the type which is "conceptually" the type stored in the container; for instance, for std::vector<bool>, operator[] doesn't return a bool&, but a proxy type²; in those cases, you really want to rely on the value_type type alias stored in the container:
template<class V, typename std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral_v<typename V::value_type>, int> = false>
Something might be not value_type-equipped but only provide .begin()/.end()
As a last improvement, we can also remove the assumption that the V has a value_type member alias (which is true for STL container), and simply require that it has a begin member function (STL container have it too), and make use of ranges::iter_value_t³:
template<class V, typename std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral_v<ranges::iter_value_t<decltype(std::declval<V>().begin())>>, int> = 0>
Notice that
ranges::iter_value_t<decltype(std::declval<V>().begin())>
is in general not the same same thing as
std::decay_t<decltype(*std::declval<V>().begin())>
a case of when they are different being, again, std::vector<bool>.
¹ std::vector<int>::operator[], for instance, returns int&, not int, and int& is not integral:
static_assert(std::is_integral_v<int&>); // fails
² For instance:
// this passes
static_assert(std::is_same_v<int, std::decay_t<decltype(std::declval<std::vector<int>>()[0])>>);
// this doesn't!
static_assert(std::is_same_v<bool, std::decay_t<decltype(std::declval<std::vector<bool>>()[0])>>);
// with my compiler, this one does pass
static_assert(std::is_same_v<std::_Bit_reference, std::decay_t<decltype(std::declval<std::vector<bool>>()[0])>>);
³ ranges::iter_value_t is from the header #include <range/v3/iterator/access.hpp> of the Range-v3 library. The documentation of that library is close to crap, so you can refer the doc of the analagous C++20 functionality on cppreference.
Why are you not using std::vector::value_type?
template<class V, typename enable_if<is_integral<typename V::value_type>::value, int>::type = 0>
int MyFunc(V vec)
{ return vec[0]; }
template<class V, typename enable_if<!is_integral<typename V::value_type>::value, int>::type = 0>
int MyFunc(V vec)
{ return ceil(vec[0]); }

How can I use C++11 variadic templates to define a vector-of-tuples backed by a tuple-of-vectors?

Suppose I have a bunch of vectors:
vector<int> v1;
vector<double> v2;
vector<int> v3;
all of the same length. Now, for every index i, I would like to be able to treat (v1[i], v2[i], v3[i]) as a tuple, and maybe pass it around. In fact, I want to have a a vector-of-tuples rather than a tuple-of-vectors, using which I can do the above. (In C terms, I might say an array-of-structs rather than a struct-of-arrays). I do not want to effect any data reordering (think: really long vectors), i.e. the new vector is backed by the individual vectors I pass in. Let's .
Now, I want the class I write (call it ToVBackedVoT for lack of a better name) to support any arbitrary choice of vectors to back it (not just 3, not int, double and int, not every just scalars). I want the vector-of-tuples to be mutable, and for no copies to be made on construction/assignments.
If I understand correctly, variadic templates and the new std::tuple type in C++11 are the means for doing this (assuming I don't want untyped void* arrays and such). However, I only barely know them and have never worked with them. Can you help me sketch out how such a class will look like? Or how, given
template <typename ... Ts>
I can express something like "the list of template arguments being the replacement of each typename in the original template arguments with a vector of elements of this type"?
Note: I think I might also want to later be able to adjoin additional vectors to the backing vectors, making an instance of ToVBackedVoT<int, double, int> into, say, an instance of ToVBackedVoT<int, double, int, unsigned int>. So, bear that in mind when answering. This is not critically important though.
One idea is to keep the storage in the "struct of array" style in form of vectors for good performance if only a subset of the fields are used for a particular task. Then, for each kind of task requiring a different set of fields, you can write a lightweight wrapper around some of those vectors, giving you a nice random access iterator interface similar to what std::vector supports.
Concerning the syntax of variadic templates, this is how a wrapper class (without any iterators yet) could look like:
template<class ...Ts> // Element types
class WrapMultiVector
{
// references to vectors in a TUPLE
std::tuple<std::vector<Ts>&...> m_vectors;
public:
// references to vectors in multiple arguments
WrapMultiVector(std::vector<Ts> & ...vectors)
: m_vectors(vectors...) // construct tuple from multiple args.
{}
};
To construct such a templated class, it's often preferred to have a template type deducting helper function available (similar to those make_{pair|tuple|...} functions in std):
template<class ...Ts> // Element types
WrapMultiVector<Ts...> makeWrapper(std::vector<Ts> & ...vectors) {
return WrapMultiVector<Ts...>(vectors...);
}
You already see different types of "unpacking" the type list.
Adding iterators suitable to your application (you requested in particular random access iterators) is not so easy. A start could be forward only iterators, which you might extend to random access iterators.
The following iterator class is capable of being constructed using a tuple of element iterators, being incremented and being dereferenced to obtain a tuple of element references (important for read-write access).
class iterator {
std::tuple<typename std::vector<Ts>::iterator...> m_elemIterators;
public:
iterator(std::tuple<typename std::vector<Ts>::iterator...> elemIterators)
: m_elemIterators(elemIterators)
{}
bool operator==(const iterator &o) const {
return std::get<0>(m_elemIterators) == std::get<0>(o.m_elemIterators);
}
bool operator!=(const iterator &o) const {
return std::get<0>(m_elemIterators) != std::get<0>(o.m_elemIterators);
}
iterator& operator ++() {
tupleIncrement(m_elemIterators);
return *this;
}
iterator operator ++(int) {
iterator old = *this;
tupleIncrement(m_elemIterators);
return old;
}
std::tuple<Ts&...> operator*() {
return getElements(IndexList());
}
private:
template<size_t ...Is>
std::tuple<Ts&...> getElements(index_list<Is...>) {
return std::tie(*std::get<Is>(m_elemIterators)...);
}
};
For demonstration purposes, two different patterns are in this code which "iterate" over a tuple in order to apply some operation or construct a new tuple with some epxression to be called per element. I used both in order to demonstrate alternatives; you can also use the second method only.
tupleIncrement: You can use a helper function which uses meta programming to index a single entry and advance the index by one, then calling a recursive function, until the index is at the end of the tuple (then there is a special case implementation which is triggered using SFINAE). The function is defined outside of the class and not above; here is its code:
template<std::size_t I = 0, typename ...Ts>
inline typename std::enable_if<I == sizeof...(Ts), void>::type
tupleIncrement(std::tuple<Ts...> &tup)
{ }
template<std::size_t I = 0, typename ...Ts>
inline typename std::enable_if<I < sizeof...(Ts), void>::type
tupleIncrement(std::tuple<Ts...> &tup)
{
++std::get<I>(tup);
tupleIncrement<I + 1, Ts...>(tup);
}
This method can't be used to assign a tuple of references in the case of operator* because such a tuple has to be initialized with references immediately, which is not possible with this method. So we need something else for operator*:
getElements: This version uses an index list (https://stackoverflow.com/a/15036110/592323) which gets expanded too and then you can use std::get with the index list to expand full expressions. The IndexList when calling the function instantiates an appropriate index list which is only required for template type deduction in order to get those Is.... The type can be defined in the wrapper class:
// list of indices
typedef decltype(index_range<0, sizeof...(Ts)>()) IndexList;
More complete code with a little example can be found here: http://ideone.com/O3CPTq
Open problems are:
If the vectors have different sizes, the code fails. Better would be to check all "end" iterators for equality; if one iterator is "at end", we're also "at end"; but this would require some logic more than operator== and operator!= unless it's ok to "fake" it in; meaning that operator!= could return false as soon as any operator is unequal.
The solution is not const-correct, e.g. there is no const_iterator.
Appending, inserting etc. is not possible. The wrapper class could add some insert or and / or push_back function in order to make it work similar to std::vector. If your goal is that it's syntactically compatible to a vector of tuples, reimplement all those relevant functions from std::vector.
Not enough tests ;)
An alternative to all the variadic template juggling is to use the boost::zip_iterator for this purpose. For example (untested):
std::vector<int> ia;
std::vector<double> d;
std::vector<int> ib;
std::for_each(
boost::make_zip_iterator(
boost::make_tuple(ia.begin(), d.begin(), ib.begin())
),
boost::make_zip_iterator(
boost::make_tuple(ia.end(), d.end(), ib.end())
),
handle_each()
);
Where your handler, looks like:
struct handle_each :
public std::unary_function<const boost::tuple<const int&, const double&, const int&>&, void>
{
void operator()(const boost::tuple<const int&, const double&, const int&>& t) const
{
// Now you have a tuple of the three values across the vector...
}
};
As you can see, it's pretty trivial to expand this to support an arbitrary set of vectors..
From asker's clarification on how this would be used (code that takes a tuple), I'm going to propose this instead.
//give the i'th element of each vector
template<typename... Ts>
inline tuple<Ts&...> ith(size_t i, vector<Ts>&... vs){
return std::tie(vs[i]...);
}
There's a proposal to allow parameter packs to be saved as members of classes (N3728). Using that, here's some untested and untestable code.
template<typename... Types>
class View{
private:
vector<Types>&... inner;
public:
typedef tuple<Types&...> reference;
View(vector<Types>&... t): inner(t...) {}
//return smallest size
size_t size() const{
//not sure if ... works with initializer lists
return min({inner.size()...});
}
reference operator[](size_t i){
return std::tie(inner[i]...);
}
};
And iteration:
public:
iterator begin(){
return iterator(inner.begin()...);
}
iterator end(){
return iterator(inner.end()...);
}
//for .begin() and .end(), so that ranged-based for can be used
class iterator{
vector<Types>::iterator... ps;
iterator(vector<Types>::iterator... its):ps(its){}
friend View;
public:
//pre:
iterator operator++(){
//not sure if this is allowed.
++ps...;
//use this if not:
// template<typename...Types> void dummy(Types... args){} //global
// dummy(++ps...);
return *this;
}
iterator& operator--();
//post:
iterator operator++(int);
iterator operator--(int);
//dereference:
reference operator*()const{
return std::tie(*ps...);
}
//random access:
iterator operator+(size_t i) const;
iterator operator-(size_t i) const;
//need to be able to check end
bool operator==(iterator other) const{
return std::make_tuple(ps...) == std::make_tuple(other.ps...);
}
bool operator!=(iterator other) const{
return std::make_tuple(ps...) != std::make_tuple(other.ps...);
}
};
You may use something like:
#if 1 // Not available in C++11, so write our own
// class used to be able to use std::get<Is>(tuple)...
template<int... Is>
struct index_sequence { };
// generator of index_sequence<Is>
template<int N, int... Is>
struct make_index_sequence : make_index_sequence<N - 1, N - 1, Is...> { };
template<int... Is>
struct make_index_sequence<0, Is...> : index_sequence<Is...> { };
#endif
// The 'converting' class
// Note that it doesn't check that vector size are equal...
template<typename ...Ts>
class ToVBackedVoT
{
public:
explicit ToVBackedVoT(std::vector<Ts>&... vectors) : data(vectors...) {}
std::tuple<const Ts&...> operator [] (unsigned int index) const
{
return at(index, make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Ts)>());
}
std::tuple<Ts&...> operator [] (unsigned int index)
{
return at(index, make_index_sequence<sizeof...(Ts)>());
}
private:
template <int... Is>
std::tuple<const Ts&...> at(unsigned int index, index_sequence<Is...>) const
{
return std::tie(std::get<Is>(data)[index]...);
}
template <int... Is>
std::tuple<Ts&...> at(unsigned int index, index_sequence<Is...>)
{
return std::tie(std::get<Is>(data)[index]...);
}
private:
std::tuple<std::vector<Ts>&...> data;
};
And to iterate, create an 'IndexIterator' like the one in https://stackoverflow.com/a/20272955/2684539
To adjoin additional vectors, you have to create an other ToVBackedVoT as std::tuple_cat does for std::tuple
Conversion to a std::tuple of vectors (vector::iterators):
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
// identity
// ========
struct identity
{
template <typename T>
struct apply {
typedef T type;
};
};
// concat_operation
// ================
template <typename Operator, typename ...> struct concat_operation;
template <
typename Operator,
typename ...Types,
typename T>
struct concat_operation<Operator, std::tuple<Types...>, T>
{
private:
typedef typename Operator::template apply<T>::type concat_type;
public:
typedef std::tuple<Types..., concat_type> type;
};
template <
typename Operator,
typename ...Types,
typename T,
typename ...U>
struct concat_operation<Operator, std::tuple<Types...>, T, U...>
{
private:
typedef typename Operator::template apply<T>::type concat_type;
public:
typedef typename concat_operation<
Operator,
std::tuple<Types..., concat_type>,
U...>
::type type;
};
template <
typename Operator,
typename T,
typename ...U>
struct concat_operation<Operator, T, U...>
{
private:
typedef typename Operator::template apply<T>::type concat_type;
public:
typedef typename concat_operation<
Operator,
std::tuple<concat_type>,
U...>
::type type;
};
// ToVectors (ToVBackedVoT)
// =========
template <typename ...T>
struct ToVectors
{
private:
struct to_vector {
template <typename V>
struct apply {
typedef typename std::vector<V> type;
};
};
public:
typedef typename concat_operation<to_vector, T...>::type type;
};
// ToIterators
// ===========
template <typename ...T>
struct ToIterators;
template <typename ...T>
struct ToIterators<std::tuple<T...>>
{
private:
struct to_iterator {
template <typename V>
struct apply {
typedef typename V::iterator type;
};
};
public:
typedef typename concat_operation<to_iterator, T...>::type type;
};
int main() {
typedef ToVectors<int, double, float>::type Vectors;
typedef ToVectors<Vectors, int, char, bool>::type MoreVectors;
typedef ToIterators<Vectors>::type Iterators;
// LOG_TYPE(Vectors);
// std::tuple<
// std::vector<int, std::allocator<int> >,
// std::vector<double, std::allocator<double> >,
// std::vector<float, std::allocator<float> > >
// LOG_TYPE(Iterators);
// std::tuple<
// __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<int*, std::vector<int, std::allocator<int> > >,
// __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<double*, std::vector<double, std::allocator<double> > >,
// __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<float*, std::vector<float, std::allocator<float> > > >
}
As an alternative similar to boost::zip_iterator I wrote a zip function with a very simple interface:
vector<int> v1;
vector<double> v2;
vector<int> v3;
auto vec_of_tuples = zip(v1, v2, v3);
For example, iterate over these tuples:
for (auto tuple : zip(v1, v2, v3)) {
int x1; double x2; int x3;
std::tie(x1, x2, x3) = tuple;
//...
}
Here, zip() takes any number of ranges of any type. It returns an adaptor which can be seen as a lazily evaluated range over a tuple of elements originating from the wrapped ranges.
The adaptor is part of my Haskell-style functional library "fn" and implemented using variadic templates.
Currently it doesn't support modification of the original ranges' values via the adaptor because of the design of the library (it's intended to be used with non-mutable ranges like in functional programming).
A brief explanation on how this is done is: zip(...) returns an adaptor object which implements begin() and end(), returning an iterator object. The iterator holds a tuple of iterators to the wrapped ranges. Incrementing the iterator increments all wrapped iterators (which is implemented using an index list and unpacking an incrementing expression into a series of expressions: ++std::get<I>(iterators)...). Dereferencing the iterator will decrement all wrapped iterators and pass it to std::make_tuple (which is also implemented as unpacking the expression *std::get<I>(iterators)...).
P.S. Its implementation is based on a lot of ideas coming from answers to this question.

boost.proto + unwrap expression from domain-specific expression wrapper

Background question: boost.proto + modify expression tree in place
Hi, consider the following transform to extract the value_type from a vector_expr (see previous questions)
template <class T> struct value_type_trait;
template <std::size_t D, class T>
struct value_type_trait<vector<D, T> >
{
typedef typename vector<D, T>::value_type type;
};
struct deduce_value_type
: proto::or_<
proto::when <vector_terminal, value_type_trait<proto::_value>() >
, proto::when <scalar_terminal, proto::_value>
, proto::otherwise <
proto::_default<deduce_value_type>()
>
>
{};
The above code can be used to provide 'maximal' value_type to the expression tree, which is obtained applying the usual C++ promotion rules and Boost.TypeOf magic. The above is used as follows
template <class Expr>
struct vector_expr : proto::extends <Expr, vector_expr <Expr>, vector_domain>
{
typedef proto::extends <Expr, vector_expr <Expr>, vector_domain> base_type;
// OK! now my expression has a 'value_type'
typedef typename boost::result_of<deduce_value_type(Expr)>::type value_type;
vector_expr (Expr const &e) : base_type (e) {}
};
But now, the following code (check previous question: boost.proto + modify expression tree in place and the code in the accepted answer) is broken (with the usual humongous template instantiation error backtrace, for my pleasure)
int main ()
{
double data[] = {1, 2, 3};
vector<3, double> a(data, data+3), b(data,data+3), c(data,data+3);
auto iter = vector_begin_algo()(a + b);
return 0;
}
The reason is simple. The type of typename boost::result_of<vector_begin_algo(a+b)>::type is:
vector_expr<
basic_expr<
tag::plus
, list2< expr<tag::terminal, term<vector_iterator<double*> >, 0l>
, expr<tag::terminal, term<vector_iterator<double*> >, 0l>
>
,
2l>
>
So, the external vector_expr<...> triggers the evaluation of the nested value_type, but the deduce_value_type algorithm doesn't know how to extract the nested value_type from vector_iterator<double*>. One solution is to define a new traits and modify deduce_value_type as follows
// A further trait
template <class Iter>
struct value_type_trait<vector_iterator<Iter> >
{
typedef typename std::iterator_traits<Iter>::value_type type;
};
// Algorithm to deduce the value type of an expression.
struct deduce_value_type
: proto::or_<
proto::when <vector_terminal, value_type_trait<proto::_value>() >
, proto::when <scalar_terminal, proto::_value>
, proto::when <proto::terminal<vector_iterator<proto::_> > , value_type_trait<proto::_value>()> // <- need this now
, proto::otherwise <
proto::_default<deduce_value_type>()
>
>
{};
There are several problems with this approach, but the most important is: for each typedef or static constant that i find convenient defining in the vector_expr struct, I will need to perform all the above only to have the expression compile, even if an iterator-expression IS-NOT vector-expression and it makes no sense to enlarge the interface of vector_expr to accommodate transformed trees.
The question is: there is a way to transform the vector_expr tree, converting vector nodes into iterator nodes, while at the same time removing the vector-ness from the tree itself so that i do not incur in the above problems?
Thanks in advance, best regards!
UPDATE
Sorry, i changed the last part of the question now that my mind is more clear about what (i think) should be achieved. In the meantime, i tried to solve the thing by myself with a partial success (?), but I feel that there should be a better way (so I still need help!).
It seems to me that the problems come from having all the tree nodes wrapped in the vector_expr thing, that has the side-effect of putting requirement on the terminals (mainly the static stuff for successfully compiling). OTOH, once a valid vector_exp has been constructed (namely: obeying the vector_grammar), then i can transform it to a valid iterator_tree without further checks.
I tried to create a transform that changes back all vector_expr nodes in a tree into 'proto::expr'. The code is as follows:
template <class Expr, long Arity = Expr::proto_arity_c>
struct deep_copy_unwrap_impl;
template <class Expr>
struct deep_copy_unwrap_impl <Expr,0>
{
typedef typename proto::tag_of <Expr>::type Tag;
typedef typename proto::result_of::value<Expr>::type A0;
typedef typename proto::result_of::make_expr<Tag, proto::default_domain, A0>::type result_type;
template<typename Expr2, typename S, typename D>
result_type operator()(Expr2 const &e, S const &, D const &) const
{
return proto::make_expr <Tag, proto::default_domain> (e.proto_base().child0);
}
};
template <class Expr>
struct deep_copy_unwrap_impl <Expr,1>
{
typedef typename proto::tag_of <Expr>::type Tag;
typedef typename proto::result_of::child_c<Expr, 0>::type A0;
typedef typename proto::result_of::make_expr<Tag, proto::default_domain, A0>::type result_type;
template<typename Expr2, typename S, typename D>
result_type operator()(Expr2 const &e, S const &, D const &) const
{
return proto::make_expr <Tag, proto::default_domain> (e.proto_base().child0);
}
};
template <class Expr>
struct deep_copy_unwrap_impl <Expr,2>
{
typedef typename proto::tag_of <Expr>::type Tag;
typedef typename proto::result_of::child_c<Expr, 0>::type A0;
typedef typename proto::result_of::child_c<Expr, 1>::type A1;
typedef typename proto::result_of::make_expr<Tag, proto::default_domain, A0, A1>::type result_type;
template<typename Expr2, typename S, typename D>
result_type operator()(Expr2 const &e, S const &, D const &) const
{
return proto::make_expr <Tag, proto::default_domain> (e.proto_base().child0, e.proto_base().child1);
}
};
struct unwrap : proto::callable
{
template <class Sig> struct result;
template <class This, class Expr>
struct result <This(Expr)>
{
typedef typename
deep_copy_unwrap_impl <Expr>
::result_type type;
};
template <class This, class Expr>
struct result <This(Expr&)>
: result<This(Expr)> {};
template <class This, class Expr>
struct result <This(Expr const&)>
: result<This(Expr)> {};
template <class Expr>
typename result <unwrap(Expr)>::type
operator () (Expr const &e) const
{
return deep_copy_unwrap_impl<Expr>()(e, 0, 0);
}
};
struct retarget
: proto::otherwise <
unwrap(proto::nary_expr<proto::_, proto::vararg<retarget> >)
>
{};
int main ()
{
int data[] = {1, 2, 3};
vector<3, int> a(data, data+3), b(data,data+3), c(data,data+3);
auto x=a+b+c; // <- x is an expression tree made up of vector_expr<...> nodes
auto y=retarget()(x); // <- y is an expression tree made up of proto::expr<...> nodes
return 0;
}
The problem you're running into is that Proto's pass_through transform creates new expressions that are in the same domain as the original. This happens in your vector_begin_algo algorithm, in the otherwise clause. You don't want this, but it's what pass_through gives you. You have two strategies: don't use pass_through, or trick pass_through into building an expression in the default domain.
If you're using the latest version of Proto (1.51), you can use make_expr and an unpacking expression instead of pass_through:
// Turn all vector terminals into vector iterator terminals
struct vector_begin_algo
: proto::or_<
proto::when<
proto::terminal<std::vector<_, _> >
, proto::_make_terminal(
vector_iterator<begin(proto::_value)>(begin(proto::_value))
)
>
, proto::when<
proto::terminal<_>
, proto::_make_terminal(proto::_byval(proto::_value))
>
, proto::otherwise<
proto::lazy<
proto::functional::make_expr<proto::tag_of<_>()>(
vector_begin_algo(proto::pack(_))...
)
>
>
>
{};
proto::lazy is needed here because you first need to build the make_expr function object before you can invoke it. It's not a thing of beauty, but it works.
If you are using an older version of Proto, you can get the same effect by tricking pass_through by first removing the domain-specific wrapper from your expression. First, I write a callable to strip the domain-specific wrapper:
struct get_base_expr
: proto::callable
{
template<typename Expr>
struct result;
template<typename This, typename Expr>
struct result<This(Expr)>
{
typedef
typename boost::remove_reference<Expr>::type::proto_base_expr
type;
};
template<typename Expr>
typename Expr::proto_base_expr operator()(Expr const &expr) const
{
return expr.proto_base();
}
};
Then, the vector_begin_algo would be changed as follows:
// Turn all vector terminals into vector iterator terminals
struct vector_begin_algo
: proto::or_<
proto::when<
proto::terminal<std::vector<_, _> >
, proto::_make_terminal(
vector_iterator<begin(proto::_value)>(begin(proto::_value))
)
>
, proto::when<
proto::terminal<_>
, proto::_make_terminal(proto::_byval(proto::_value))
>
, proto::otherwise<
proto::_byval(proto::pass_through<
proto::nary_expr<_, proto::vararg<vector_begin_algo> >
>(get_base_expr(_)))
>
>
{};
This is also not a work of art, but it gets the job done. Don't forget the proto::_byval to work around the const weirdness in the pass_through transform (which is fixed is boost trunk and will be in 1.52, btw).
I can think of one final solution that takes advantage of the fact that Proto expressions are Fusion sequences of their children. You create a Fusion transform_view that wraps the expression and transforms each child with vector_begin_algo. That gets passed to proto::functional::unpack_expr, much like in the first example with make_expr. You'd need proto::lazy there also, for the same reason.
Thanks for pointing out this limitation on Proto's built-in pass_through transform. It'd be good to have a nicer way to do this.

How to insert a pair of std::pair inside another std::pair?

I'm declaring a map of string to a pair of pairs as follow:
std::map<std::wstring,
std::pair<std::pair<long, long>,
std::pair<long, long>>> reference;
And I initialize it as:
reference.insert(L"First",
std::pair<std::pair<long, long>,
std::pair<long, long>>(std::pair<long, long>(-1, -1),
std::pair<long, long>(0, 0)));
However, Visual C++ gives me the error "C2664, No constructor could take the source type, or constructor overload resolution was ambiguous".
I'm new to using templates and STL and I can't tell what I'm doing wrong.
The >>> can not be parsed correctly (unless you have a C++0x compiler).
Change to > > >
This:
reference.insert("First",
Should be:
reference.insert(L"First",
^^^
Also there is a utility function to make the construction of pairs easier:
std::pair<std::pair<long, long>, std::pair<long, long>>(std::pair<long, long>(-1, -1), std::pair<long, long>(0, 0))
Can be:
std::make_pair(std::make_pair(-1L,-1L),std::make_pair(0L,0L))
Try this:
reference[L"First"]
= std::make_pair(std::make_pair(-1L,-1L),std::make_pair(0L,0L));
C++ gets confused by the consecutive ">" when you close the template as it interprets that as the shift operator.
Add spaces between the closing templates, change >>> to > > >
map::insert itself takes a single std::pair argument, rather than two arguments. You can tidy up the code by using std::make_pair (which infers the template arguments from the function arguments), to get something like:
reference.insert(std::make_pair("First",
std::make_pair(std::make_pair(-1L,-1L),
std::make_pair(0L,0L))));
You could simplify your code by creating a helper function to create pairs of pairs, analog to the std::make_pair helper function that is available in the standard library. Also using the maps operator[] for insertion results in easier to read code:
template<typename T, typename U, typename V, typename W>
std::pair< std::pair<T,U>, std::pair<V,W> > make_pair_pair(T t, U u, V v, W w) {
// using std::make_pair instead of the constructor for better readability
return std::make_pair(std::make_pair(t, u), std::make_pair(v, w));
}
reference[L"First"] = make_pair_pair(1,2,3,4);
It helps to use typedefs when debugging this sort of thing.
// test1.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <map>
#include <string>
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
typedef std::pair<long, long> ElementType;
typedef std::pair<ElementType, ElementType> ValueType;
typedef std::wstring KeyType;
std::map<KeyType, ValueType> reference;
KeyType key = L"First";
reference[key] = ValueType(ElementType(-1, -1), ElementType(0, 0));
return 0;
}

iterator adapter to iterate just the values in a map?

I'm just getting back into C++ after a couple of years of doing a lot of C#, and recently Objective C.
One thing I've done before is to roll my own iterator adapter for std::map that will deref to just the value part, rather than the key-value pair. This is quite a common and natural thing to do. C# provides this facility with its Keys and Values properties of its Dictionary class. Objective-C's NSDictionary, similarly, has allKeys and allValues.
Since I've been "away", Boost has acquired the Range and ForEach libraries, which I am now using extensively. I wondered if between the two there was some facility to do the same, but I haven't been able to find anything.
I'm thinking of knocking something up using Boost's iterator adapters, but before I go down that route I thought I'd ask here if anyone knows of such a facility in Boost, or somewhere else ready made?
Replacing the previous answer, in case anybody else finds this like I did. As of boost 1.43, there are some commonly used range adaptors provided. In this case, you want boost::adaptors::map_values. The relevant example:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_46_0/libs/range/doc/html/range/reference/adaptors/reference/map_values.html#range.reference.adaptors.reference.map_values.map_values_example
I don't think there's anything out of the box. You can use boost::make_transform.
template<typename T1, typename T2> T2& take_second(const std::pair<T1, T2> &a_pair)
{
return a_pair.second;
}
void run_map_value()
{
map<int,string> a_map;
a_map[0] = "zero";
a_map[1] = "one";
a_map[2] = "two";
copy( boost::make_transform_iterator(a_map.begin(), take_second<int, string>),
boost::make_transform_iterator(a_map.end(), take_second<int, string>),
ostream_iterator<string>(cout, "\n")
);
}
There is a boost range adaptor for exactly this purpose.
See http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/libs/range/doc/html/range/reference/adaptors/reference/map_values.html
(This example cribbed from there)
int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
using namespace boost::assign;
using namespace boost::adaptors;
std::map<int,int> input;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
input.insert(std::make_pair(i, i * 10));
boost::copy(
input | map_values,
std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ","));
return 0;
}
Continuing David's answer, there's another possibility to put the boile by creating a derived class from boost::transform_iterator. I'm using this solution in my projects:
namespace detail
{
template<bool IsConst, bool IsVolatile, typename T>
struct add_cv_if_c
{
typedef T type;
};
template<typename T>
struct add_cv_if_c<true, false, T>
{
typedef const T type;
};
template<typename T>
struct add_cv_if_c<false, true, T>
{
typedef volatile T type;
};
template<typename T>
struct add_cv_if_c<true, true, T>
{
typedef const volatile T type;
};
template<typename TestConst, typename TestVolatile, typename T>
struct add_cv_if: public add_cv_if_c<TestConst::value, TestVolatile::value, T>
{};
} // namespace detail
/** An unary function that accesses the member of class T specified in the MemberPtr template parameter.
The cv-qualification of T is preserved for MemberType
*/
template<typename T, typename MemberType, MemberType T::*MemberPtr>
struct access_member_f
{
// preserve cv-qualification of T for T::second_type
typedef typename detail::add_cv_if<
std::tr1::is_const<T>,
std::tr1::is_volatile<T>,
MemberType
>::type& result_type;
result_type operator ()(T& t) const
{
return t.*MemberPtr;
}
};
/** #short An iterator adaptor accessing the member called 'second' of the class the
iterator is pointing to.
*/
template<typename Iterator>
class accessing_second_iterator: public
boost::transform_iterator<
access_member_f<
// note: we use the Iterator's reference because this type
// is the cv-qualified iterated type (as opposed to value_type).
// We want to preserve the cv-qualification because the iterator
// might be a const_iterator e.g. iterating a const
// std::pair<> but std::pair<>::second_type isn't automatically
// const just because the pair is const - access_member_f is
// preserving the cv-qualification, otherwise compiler errors will
// be the result
typename std::tr1::remove_reference<
typename std::iterator_traits<Iterator>::reference
>::type,
typename std::iterator_traits<Iterator>::value_type::second_type,
&std::iterator_traits<Iterator>::value_type::second
>,
Iterator
>
{
typedef boost::transform_iterator<
access_member_f<
typename std::tr1::remove_reference<
typename std::iterator_traits<Iterator>::reference
>::type,
typename std::iterator_traits<Iterator>::value_type::second_type,
&std::iterator_traits<Iterator>::value_type::second
>,
Iterator
> baseclass;
public:
accessing_second_iterator():
baseclass()
{}
// note: allow implicit conversion from Iterator
accessing_second_iterator(Iterator it):
baseclass(it)
{}
};
This leads to even cleaner code:
void run_map_value()
{
typedef map<int, string> a_map_t;
a_map_t a_map;
a_map[0] = "zero";
a_map[1] = "one";
a_map[2] = "two";
typedef accessing_second_iterator<a_map_t::const_iterator> ia_t;
// note: specify the iterator adaptor type explicitly as template type, enabling
// implicit conversion from begin()/end()
copy<ia_t>(a_map.begin(), a_map.end(),
ostream_iterator<string>(cout, "\n")
);
}