When playing around with good ol' c++ I started wondering whether it is possible to overload a template function based on an enclosing template. At the first layer this looks achievable, however, how can this be done recursively? So that the below pseudo-c++ code
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <map>
template <typename T> void magic(){
std::cout << "Called magic<T>" << std::endl;
}
template <typename std::vector<T> > void magic(){
std::cout << "Called magic<std::vector<T> >" << std::endl;
magic<T>();
}
template <typename std::map<T,U> > void magic(){
std::cout << "Called magic<std::map<T,U> >" << std::endl;
magic<T>();
magic<U>();
}
int main() {
magic<std::vector<std::map<std::string,std::vector<int> > > >();
}
yields something like:
Called magic<std::vector<T> >
Called magic<std::map<T,U> >
Called magic<T>
Called magic<std::vector<T> >
Called magic<T>
In principle this does not look like it should be impossible because all the type info is available at compile time. The compiler could easily create all required functions since the recursion is bound to stop. And thus the question: Is this possible? If so, how?
Simple specialization should do the trick, but bear in mind that you cannot specialize function templates partially, so you'll need an intermediate class template:
template <typename> void magic();
template <typename T>
struct Impl
{
static void f() { std::cout << "Primary template\n"; }
};
template <typename T, typename A>
struct Impl<std::vector<T, A>>
{
static void f() { std::cout << "A vector\n"; magic<T>(); }
};
template <typename K, typename T, typename P, typename A>
struct Impl<std::map<K, T, P, A>>
{
static void f() { std::cout << "A map\n"; magic<K>(); magic<T>(); }
};
template <typename T> void magic() { Impl<T>::f(); }
You need partial template specialization, that is a template specialization which itself is a template again.
That is not possible with function templates but it is with classes. So the workaround is to create a class template (here called Magic) with the specializations. Within that class, a simple (non-template) function is called.
Then, a function magic forwards to that class in order to hide that "hack":
Live demo of this code snippet
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <map>
// Forward declaration of the magic function:
template <typename> void magic();
// General case:
template <typename T>
struct Magic {
static void m(){
std::cout << "Called magic<T>" << std::endl;
}
};
// Vector case:
template <typename T>
struct Magic<std::vector<T> > {
static void m(){
std::cout << "Called magic<std::vector<T> >" << std::endl;
magic<T>();
}
};
// Map case:
template <typename T, typename U>
struct Magic<std::map<T,U> > {
static void m(){
std::cout << "Called magic<std::map<T> >" << std::endl;
magic<T>();
magic<U>();
}
};
// Implementation of the magic function:
template <typename T>
void magic() {
std::cout << "Forwarding..." << std::endl;
Magic<T>::m();
}
int main() {
magic<std::vector<std::map<std::string,std::vector<int> > > >();
}
Related
I have a templated function, and at one point I would like to have different code depending on the template parameter:
template <typename T>
void function(const T ¶m) {
// generic code here...
// pseudo-code:
if constexpr isinstance(param, Banana) {
param.peel();
} else if constexpr isinstance(param, Apple) {
// do nothing, Apple has no method `peel`
}
}
I don't want to specialize the whole function, since most of the code is shared. The statement I want to insert is acutally a temporary debugging measure. I know the correct thing would be to create a overloaded function doPeel and call that instead:
void doPeel(const Banana ¶m) { param.peel(); }
void doPeel(const Apple ¶m) {}
But I'm curious, is there a way to tell at compile time, in a function, what (template specialization) type a given variable is... in order to use statements that only compile for one type?
I wonder if something like that is possible with constexpr - or does the compiler enforce types in a discarded branch? I also tried making up something with lambdas - defining lambdas for both cases and only calling one, but I could not find a way to do it. Any ideas?
There is if constexpr in C++17:
template<typename T>
void foo(T const& t)
{
if constexpr(is_same<decay_t<T>, int>::value) {
cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << " " << t * 2 << endl;
} else {
cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl;
}
}
live demo
In C++14 you could hack something like this:
template<typename T>
void foo(T const& t)
{
conditional_eval<is_same<decay_t<T>, int>>([=](auto){
cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << " " << t * 2 << endl;
},[](auto){
cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl;
});
}
With conditional_eval defined as:
template<typename IfTrue, typename IfFalse>
void conditional_eval_impl(std::true_type, IfTrue&& t, IfFalse&&) {
t(0);
}
template<typename IfTrue, typename IfFalse>
void conditional_eval_impl(std::false_type, IfTrue&&, IfFalse&& f) {
f(0);
}
template<typename Tag, typename IfTrue, typename IfFalse>
void conditional_eval(IfTrue&& t, IfFalse&& f) {
conditional_eval_impl(Tag{}, std::forward<IfTrue>(t), std::forward<IfFalse>(f));
}
live demo
In C++14 you could emulate if constexpr using generic lambda e.g. by:
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
template <bool B>
struct constexpr_if {
template <class Lambda, class T>
static void then(Lambda l, T&& value) { }
};
template <>
struct constexpr_if<true> {
template <class Lambda, class T>
static void then(Lambda l, T&& value) {
l(std::forward<T>(value));
}
};
struct Banana {
void peel() const {
std::cout << "Banana::peel" << std::endl;
}
};
struct Apple {
};
template <typename T>
void function(const T ¶m) {
constexpr_if<std::is_same<T, Banana>::value>::then([&](auto &p){
p.peel();
}, param);
}
int main() {
function(Banana{});
function(Apple{});
}
Suppose I've written:
template <typename T, typename = std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral<T>::value>>
void foo() { std::cout << "T is integral." << std::endl; }
template <typename T>
void foo() { std::cout << "Any T." << std::endl; }
int main() { foo<short>(); }
When I compile this, I get an error about the ambiguity of the call (and no error if, say, I replace short with float). How should I fix this code so that I get the upper version for integral types and lower version otherwise?
Bonus points if your suggestion scales to the case of multiple specialized versions of foo() in addition to the general one.
I like Xeo's approach for this problem. Let's do some tag dispatch with a fallback. Create a chooser struct that inherits from itself all the way down:
template <int I>
struct choice : choice<I + 1> { };
template <> struct choice<10> { }; // just stop somewhere
So choice<x> is convertible to choice<y> for x < y, which means that choice<0> is the best choice. Now, you need a last case:
struct otherwise{ otherwise(...) { } };
With that machinery, we can forward our main function template with an extra argument:
template <class T> void foo() { foo_impl<T>(choice<0>{}); }
And then make your top choice integral and your worst-case option... anything:
template <class T, class = std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral<T>::value>>
void foo_impl(choice<0> ) {
std::cout << "T is integral." << std::endl;
}
template <typename T>
void foo_impl(otherwise ) {
std::cout << "Any T." << std::endl;
}
This makes it very easy to add more options in the middle. Just add an overload for choice<1> or choice<2> or whatever. No need for disjoint conditions either. The preferential overload resolution for choice<x> takes care of that.
Even better if you additionally pass in the T as an argument, because overloading is way better than specializing:
template <class T> struct tag {};
template <class T> void foo() { foo_impl(tag<T>{}, choice<0>{}); }
And then you can go wild:
// special 1st choice for just int
void foo_impl(tag<int>, choice<0> );
// backup 1st choice for any integral
template <class T, class = std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral<T>::value>>
void foo_impl(tag<T>, choice<0> );
// 2nd option for floats
template <class T, class = std::enable_if_t<std::is_floating_point<T>::value>>
void foo_impl(tag<T>, choice<1> );
// 3rd option for some other type trait
template <class T, class = std::enable_if_t<whatever<T>::value>>
void foo_impl(tag<T>, choice<2> );
// fallback
template <class T>
void foo_impl(tag<T>, otherwise );
One more option using tag dispatch (C++11):
#include <iostream>
void foo_impl(std::false_type) {
std::cout << "Any T." << std::endl;
}
void foo_impl(std::true_type) {
std::cout << "T is integral." << std::endl;
}
template <typename T>
void foo() {
foo_impl(std::is_integral<typename std::remove_reference<T>::type>());
//foo_impl(std::is_integral<typename std::remove_reference_t<T>>()); // C++14
}
int main() {
foo<short>(); // --> T is integral.
foo<short&>(); // --> T is integral.
foo<float>(); // --> Any T.
}
Borrowed from Scott Meyers Effective Modern C++ item 27.
One way:
template <typename T, typename std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral<T>::value>* = nullptr>
void foo() { std::cout << "T is integral." << std::endl; }
template <typename T, typename std::enable_if_t<not std::is_integral<T>::value>* = nullptr>
void foo() { std::cout << "Any T." << std::endl; }
Another way is to defer to a template function object:
template<class T, typename = void>
struct foo_impl
{
void operator()() const {
std::cout << "Any T." << std::endl;
}
};
template<class T>
struct foo_impl<T, std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral<T>::value>>
{
void operator()() const {
std::cout << "T is integral." << std::endl;
}
};
template<class T>
void foo() {
return foo_impl<T>()();
}
One way to do this is:
template <typename T>
std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral<T>::value, void> foo () {
std::cout << "integral version" << std::endl;
}
template <typename T>
std::enable_if_t<!std::is_integral<T>::value, void> foo () {
std::cout << "general version" << std::endl;
}
with usage:
foo<int> ();
foo<double> ();
struct X {};
foo<X> ();
output is:
integral version
general version
general version
AFAIK, sfinae is applicable to function params so try to add parameter of dependent type with default value
template <typename T>
void foo(typename std::enable_if_t<std::is_integral<T>::value>* = 0)
{ std::cout << "T is integral." << std::endl; }
template <typename T>
void foo(typename std::enable_if_t<!std::is_integral<T>::value>* = 0)
{ std::cout << "Any T." << std::endl; }
I'm trying to specialize a member function template for two different types of classes as follows:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/utility/enable_if.hpp>
struct Wibble
{
static const bool CAN_WIBBLE = true;
};
struct Wobble
{
static const bool CAN_WIBBLE = false;
};
struct Foo
{
//template<typename T> // Why isn't this declaration sufficient?
//void doStuff();
template<typename T>
typename boost::enable_if_c<T::CAN_WIBBLE,void>::type
doStuff();
template<typename T>
typename boost::enable_if_c<!T::CAN_WIBBLE,void>::type
doStuff();
};
template<typename T>
typename boost::enable_if_c<T::CAN_WIBBLE,void>::type
Foo::doStuff()
{
std::cout << "wibble ..." << std::endl;
}
template<typename T>
typename boost::enable_if_c<!T::CAN_WIBBLE,void>::type
Foo::doStuff()
{
std::cout << "I can't wibble ..." << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
Foo f;
f.doStuff<Wibble>();
f.doStuff<Wobble>();
}
Whereas GCC 4.8.2 compiles the code, VS .NET 2008 spits out the error message:
error C2244: 'Foo::doStuff' : unable to match function definition to an existing declaration
definition
'boost::enable_if_c<!T::CAN_WIBBLE,void>::type Foo::doStuff(void)'
existing declarations
'boost::enable_if_c<!T::CAN_WIBBLE,void>::type Foo::doStuff(void)'
'boost::enable_if_c<T::CAN_WIBBLE,void>::type Foo::doStuff(void)'
I suggest to use tag dispatching: https://ideone.com/PA5PTg
struct Foo
{
template<bool wibble>
void _doStuff();
public:
template<typename T>
void doStuff()
{
_doStuff<T::CAN_WIBBLE>();
}
};
template<>
void Foo::_doStuff<true>() { std::cout << "wibble ..." << std::endl; }
template<>
void Foo::_doStuff<false>() { std::cout << "I can't wibble ..." << std::endl; }
You can't partially specialize (member) function templates. End of story.
Even if you could, you should have had a SFINAE-friendly primary template. In pseudo code:
template<typename T, typename Enable> void doStuff();
template<typename T> void doStuff<T, typename boost::enable_if_c<T::CAN_WIBBLE,void>::type>()
{ std::cout << "wibble ..." << std::endl; }
template<typename T> void doStuff<T, typename boost::enable_if_c<!T::CAN_WIBBLE,void>::type>()
{ std::cout << "I can't wibble ..." << std::endl; }
You could still use this technique if you are ready class templates (as functors or just types defining non-template methods...).
As a rule of thumb, for function templates, overload resolution provides static polymorphism that removes the need for partial specialization. See
GotW #49 Template Specialization and Overloading
Why Not Specialize Function Templates?
Both by Herb Sutter
I want to unpack the parameter pack in func (see line A), but it doesnt work. How can I unpack inside func< > or modify Line A only?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void func()
{
cerr << "EMPTY" << endl;
}
template <class A, class ...B> void func()
{
cerr << "A: " << endl;
func<B... >(); // line A
}
int main(void)
{
func<int,int>();
return 0;
}
An expected output :
A:
A:
edited:
all of answers are very good. thanks alot
Sometimes it's easier to unpack everything at once, instead of recursively. If you simply want a parameter pack for_each, you can use a variant of the braced-init-list expansion trick (Live demo at Coliru):
template <class A>
void process_one_type() {
cerr << typeid(A).name() << ' ';
}
template <class ...B> void func()
{
int _[] = {0, (process_one_type<B>(), 0)...};
(void)_;
cerr << '\n';
}
By using func<B... >(); you are implying that func is a function template, but your previously defined func() is not.
You need to define a func() template that accepts zero template arguments. Here's a working example (on g++ 4.8.1):
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void func()
{
cerr << "EMPTY" << endl;
}
template <class ... B>
typename std::enable_if<sizeof...(B) == 0>::type func()
{
}
template <class A, class ...B> void func()
{
cerr << "A: " << endl;
func<B... >(); // line A
}
int main(void)
{
func(); // This outputs EMPTY
func<int,int>(); // This will not output EMPTY
return 0;
}
Try this:
template <class A> void func()
{
cerr << "A: " << endl;
}
template <class A, class B, class ...C> void func()
{
cerr << "A: " << endl;
func<B, C...>(); // line A
}
Consider what the invocation of the recursive call func<B...>(); looks like when B... is empty. It's calling func<>(); but the definition of your attempted base case func() is not a template function, ie. you can't call it via func<>();
Since we don't have partial specialization for function templates yet, (hopefully it will be supported soon) one way to do it is to use a class template to do the partial specialization and use the function to simply delegate the work to the class template.
#include <iostream>
/* Forward declaration. */
template <typename... T>
struct FuncImpl;
/* Base case. */
template <>
struct FuncImpl<> {
void operator()() const {
std::cout << "Base case" << std::endl;
}
}; // FuncImpl<>
/* Recursive case. */
template <typename First, typename... Rest>
struct FuncImpl<First, Rest...> {
void operator()() const {
std::cout << "Recursive case" << std::endl;
FuncImpl<Rest...>()();
}
}; // FuncImpl<First, Rest...>
/* Delegate function. */
template <typename... T>
void Func() {
FuncImpl<T...>()();
}
int main() {
Func<>();
Func<int, double>();
}
Personally I think this solution is cleaner than other solutions such as tagged dispatching or SFINAE, despite the cruft around operator()s.
template <class T, bool flag>
class A
{
//...
void f()
{
std::cout << "false" << std::endl;
}
//...
};
template<class T>
void A<T, true>::f<T, true>()
{
std::cout << "true" << std::endl;
}
The code above is wrong and don't compile, but you get the idea of what I'm going to do. So how should I do that?
You can't specialize just one method of a class. Usually you can solve that with a template nested class on the same T.
template <class T, bool flag>
class A
{
//...
template <class Q, bool flag>
class F_Helper
{
void operator()()
{
std::cout << "false" << std::endl;
}
};
template <class Q>
class F_Helper<Q, true>
{
void operator()()
{
std::cout << "true" << std::endl;
}
};
F_Helper<T> f;
//...
};
Obviously a bit more boilerplate is needed if you do need access to the enclosing class' this pointer.
Contrary to what the other answers say, you can specialize a member function of a class template. But you need to provide all template arguments
template<>
void A<int, true>::f()
{
std::cout << "true" << std::endl;
}
What you try is not valid:
template<typename T>
void A<T, true>::f()
{
std::cout << "true" << std::endl;
}
Partially specializing a member of a class template for particular arguments of that class template is not valid, so that means "define the member function 'f' of a partial specialization of A for <T, true>". Because there is no such partial specialization, the compiler will error out.
If you cannot provide all arguments, you can overload f as follows
template <class T, bool flag>
class A
{
template<typename, bool> struct params { };
void f()
{
f(params<T, flags>());
}
template<typename U>
void f(params<U, true>) {
std::cout << "true" << std::endl;
}
template<typename U, bool flag1>
void f(params<U, flag1>) {
std::cout << "dunno" << std::endl;
}
};
You can specialize whole template class - Ideone link
#include <iostream>
template <class T, bool flag>
class A
{
//...
void f()
{
std::cout << "false" << std::endl;
}
//...
};
template<class T>
class A<T, true>
{
//...
void f()
{
std::cout << "true" << std::endl;
}
//...
};
You need to specialize the whole class:
#include <iostream>
template <class T, bool flag>
class A
{
public:
void f()
{
std::cout << "false" << std::endl;
}
};
template<class T>
class A<T,true>
{
public:
void f()
{
std::cout << "true" << std::endl;
}
};
void main()
{
A<int, false> a;
a.f();
A<int, true> b;
b.f();
}