template <typename T>
void test(const T& x) {}
int a {};
int& ref = a;
const int& c_ref = a;
test(c_ref) // T = int, x = const int&
test<int&>(ref); // T = int& , x = int&
Why does the function template parameter x loses the const qualifier?
In the explicit (non-deduced) instantiation
test<int&>(ref);
this is the (theoretical) signature you get
void test<int&>(const (int&)& x)
which shows that the const-qualification applies to the whole (int&), and not only the int. const applies to what is left, and if there's nothing, it applies to what is right: int&, but as a whole - there, it applies to &, again because const applies to what's on its left. But there are no const references (they aren't changeable at all, i.e., they can't rebind), the const is dropped, and reference collapsing rules contract the two & into one.
Suppose you have the following pair of functions:
void f(const int&) {
// Do something, making a copy of the argument.
}
void f(int&&) {
// Do the same thing, but moving the argument.
}
They are fairly redundant—the only difference between the functions being whether they copy or move their argument. Of course, we can do better by re-writing this as a single template function:
template<typename T>
void g(T&&) {
// Do something, possibly using std::forward to copy or move the argument.
}
This works, and is a commonly used idiom in practice. But the template might be instantiated into three functions, up from our two above. We can verify this occurs with the following piece of code:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T> constexpr char *type = nullptr;
template<> constexpr const char *type<int&> = "int&";
template<> constexpr const char *type<const int&> = "const int&";
template<> constexpr const char *type<int> = "int";
template<typename T>
void g(T&&) {
std::cout << reinterpret_cast<void*>(&g<T>)
<< " = &g<" << type<T> << ">" << std::endl;
}
int main() {
int i = 0;
const int& cr = 0;
g(i);
g(cr);
g(0);
return 0;
}
/*
Prints:
0x100f45080 = &g<int&>
0x100f45100 = &g<const int&>
0x100f45180 = &g<int>
*/
This has added a third function for the case when T = int&, which we didn't have when we were using our non-templated function f above. In this case, we don't actually need this non-const l-value reference version of the function—given f was sufficient for our original needs—and this increases the size of our code, especially if we have many template functions written this way that call each other.
Is there a way to write our function g above so that the compiler will automatically deduce T = const int& when g(i) is called in our example code? I.e., a way where we don't have to manually write g<const int&>(i) yet still get the desired behavior.
It is a subjective point-of-view to say "forward references" ("universal references") are better than dedicated overloads. There are certainly many cases where this is true, but if you want to have full control they won't do all the jobs.
You could explicitly make sure users do not pass non-const lvalue references, by adding
static_assert(!std::is_lvalue_reference<T>::value || std::is_const<typename std::remove_reference<T>::type>::value, "only call g with const argument");
inside g, but this is not in all cases a very good solution.
Or you do what is done for vector::push_back(...) and provide explicit overloads -- but this was your starting point, see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/push_back.
The 'correct' answer just depends on your requirements.
Edit:
the suggestion of #Sjoerd would look something like:
template <typename T>
class aBitComplicated {
public:
void func(T&& v) { internal_func(std::forward<T>(v)); }
void func(const T& v) { internal_func(v); }
private:
template <typename U>
void internal_func(U&& v) { /* your universal code*/ }
};
There also a bit more sophisticated/complicated version of this, but this here should be the most simple version to achieve what you asked for.
In a main function, I created a variable of const int pointer, assign it to a variable declared by auto&. Then using the decltype(x) to check the type. I expected the type is const int*. But is_same returns false.
int main()
{
int a = 10;
const int * cp_val= &a;
auto& x = cp_val;
bool is_const_int_ptr = std::is_same<decltype(x), const int *>::value; // returns 0
// *x = 100; // error: assignment of read-only location '* x'
}
But if I add the following helper function:
#include <boost/type_index.hpp>
template<typename T>
void print_type(T)
{cout << "type T is: "<< boost::typeindex::type_id_with_cvr<T>().pretty_name()<< '\n';}
In the main, I invoke the function
print_type(x); // It returns int const*
Am I missing something in std::is_same?
Note that for auto& x, you're declaring x as reference explicitly; then its type should be const int *&, i.e. a reference to pointer to const int.
Here's a better idea (from Effective Modern C++ (Scott Meyers)) to get the accurate type at compile time from the compiling error message.
template <typename>
struct TD;
then use it as
TD<decltype(x)> td;
you'll get error message like
source_file.cpp:15:21: error: implicit instantiation of undefined template 'TD<const int *&>'
TD<decltype(x)> td;
^
LIVE
Your helper function takes parameter by value; the reference-ness of the argument will be ignored in type deduction, that's why you got const int*.
Template argument deduction and auto are intimately related: The declaration auto x = e; gives x the same type as f(e) would give to T in an invented function template <typename T> f(T);, and similarly for auto& and f(T&), const auto* and f(const T*), etc.
Therefore, to get the correct answer from Boost, you need to declare:
template <typename T> void print_type(T&);
// ^^^^
The type of x is of course const int*&.
How do I avoid implicit casting on non-constructing functions?
I have a function that takes an integer as a parameter,
but that function will also take characters, bools, and longs.
I believe it does this by implicitly casting them.
How can I avoid this so that the function only accepts parameters of a matching type, and will refuse to compile otherwise?
There is a keyword "explicit" but it does not work on non-constructing functions. :\
what do I do?
The following program compiles, although I'd like it not to:
#include <cstdlib>
//the function signature requires an int
void function(int i);
int main(){
int i{5};
function(i); //<- this is acceptable
char c{'a'};
function(c); //<- I would NOT like this to compile
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
void function(int i){return;}
*please be sure to point out any misuse of terminology and assumptions
Define function template which matches all other types:
void function(int); // this will be selected for int only
template <class T>
void function(T) = delete; // C++11
This is because non-template functions with direct matching are always considered first. Then the function template with direct match are considered - so never function<int> will be used. But for anything else, like char, function<char> will be used - and this gives your compilation errrors:
void function(int) {}
template <class T>
void function(T) = delete; // C++11
int main() {
function(1);
function(char(1)); // line 12
}
ERRORS:
prog.cpp: In function 'int main()':
prog.cpp:4:6: error: deleted function 'void function(T) [with T = char]'
prog.cpp:12:20: error: used here
This is C++03 way:
// because this ugly code will give you compilation error for all other types
class DeleteOverload
{
private:
DeleteOverload(void*);
};
template <class T>
void function(T a, DeleteOverload = 0);
void function(int a)
{}
You can't directly, because a char automatically gets promoted to int.
You can resort to a trick though: create a function that takes a char as parameter and don't implement it. It will compile, but you'll get a linker error:
void function(int i)
{
}
void function(char i);
//or, in C++11
void function(char i) = delete;
Calling the function with a char parameter will break the build.
See http://ideone.com/2SRdM
Terminology: non-construcing functions? Do you mean a function that is not a constructor?
8 years later (PRE-C++20, see edit):
The most modern solution, if you don't mind template functions -which you may mind-, is to use a templated function with std::enable_if and std::is_same.
Namely:
// Where we want to only take int
template <class T, std::enable_if_t<std::is_same_v<T,int>,bool> = false>
void func(T x) {
}
EDIT (c++20)
I've recently switched to c++20 and I believe that there is a better way. If your team or you don't use c++20, or are not familiar with the new concepts library, do not use this. This is much nicer and the intended method as outlines in the new c++20 standard, and by the writers of the new feature (read a papers written by Bjarne Stroustrup here.
template <class T>
requires std::same_as(T,int)
void func(T x) {
//...
}
Small Edit (different pattern for concepts)
The following is a much better way, because it explains your reason, to have an explicit int. If you are doing this frequently, and would like a good pattern, I would do the following:
template <class T>
concept explicit_int = std::same_as<T,int>;
template <explicit_int T>
void func(T x) {
}
Small edit 2 (the last I promise)
Also a way to accomplish this possibility:
template <class T>
concept explicit_int = std::same_as<T,int>;
void func(explicit_int auto x) {
}
Here's a general solution that causes an error at compile time if function is called with anything but an int
template <typename T>
struct is_int { static const bool value = false; };
template <>
struct is_int<int> { static const bool value = true; };
template <typename T>
void function(T i) {
static_assert(is_int<T>::value, "argument is not int");
return;
}
int main() {
int i = 5;
char c = 'a';
function(i);
//function(c);
return 0;
}
It works by allowing any type for the argument to function but using is_int as a type-level predicate. The generic implementation of is_int has a false value but the explicit specialization for the int type has value true so that the static assert guarantees that the argument has exactly type int otherwise there is a compile error.
Maybe you can use a struct to make the second function private:
#include <cstdlib>
struct NoCast {
static void function(int i);
private:
static void function(char c);
};
int main(){
int i(5);
NoCast::function(i); //<- this is acceptable
char c('a');
NoCast::function(c); //<- Error
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
void NoCast::function(int i){return;}
This won't compile:
prog.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
prog.cpp:7: error: ‘static void NoCast::function(char)’ is private
prog.cpp:16: error: within this context
For C++14 (and I believe C++11), you can disable copy constructors by overloading rvalue-references as well:
Example:
Say you have a base Binding<C> class, where C is either the base Constraint class, or an inherited class. Say you are storing Binding<C> by value in a vector, and you pass a reference to the binding and you wish to ensure that you do not cause an implicit copy.
You may do so by deleting func(Binding<C>&& x) (per PiotrNycz's example) for rvalue-reference specific cases.
Snippet:
template<typename T>
void overload_info(const T& x) {
cout << "overload: " << "const " << name_trait<T>::name() << "&" << endl;
}
template<typename T>
void overload_info(T&& x) {
cout << "overload: " << name_trait<T>::name() << "&&" << endl;
}
template<typename T>
void disable_implicit_copy(T&& x) = delete;
template<typename T>
void disable_implicit_copy(const T& x) {
cout << "[valid] ";
overload_info<T>(x);
}
...
int main() {
Constraint c;
LinearConstraint lc(1);
Binding<Constraint> bc(&c, {});
Binding<LinearConstraint> blc(&lc, {});
CALL(overload_info<Binding<Constraint>>(bc));
CALL(overload_info<Binding<LinearConstraint>>(blc));
CALL(overload_info<Binding<Constraint>>(blc));
CALL(disable_implicit_copy<Binding<Constraint>>(bc));
// // Causes desired error
// CALL(disable_implicit_copy<Binding<Constraint>>(blc));
}
Output:
>>> overload_info(bc)
overload: T&&
>>> overload_info<Binding<Constraint>>(bc)
overload: const Binding<Constraint>&
>>> overload_info<Binding<LinearConstraint>>(blc)
overload: const Binding<LinearConstraint>&
>>> overload_info<Binding<Constraint>>(blc)
implicit copy: Binding<LinearConstraint> -> Binding<Constraint>
overload: Binding<Constraint>&&
>>> disable_implicit_copy<Binding<Constraint>>(bc)
[valid] overload: const Binding<Constraint>&
Error (with clang-3.9 in bazel, when offending line is uncommented):
cpp_quick/prevent_implicit_conversion.cc:116:8: error: call to deleted function 'disable_implicit_copy'
CALL(disable_implicit_copy<Binding<Constraint>>(blc));
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Full Source Code: prevent_implicit_conversion.cc
Well, I was going to answer this with the code below, but even though it works with Visual C++, in the sense of producing the desired compilation error, MinGW g++ 4.7.1 accepts it, and invokes the rvalue reference constructor!
I think it must be a compiler bug, but I could be wrong, so – anyone?
Anyway, here's the code, which may turn out to be a standard-compliant solution (or, it may turn out that that's a thinko on my part!):
#include <iostream>
#include <utility> // std::is_same, std::enable_if
using namespace std;
template< class Type >
struct Boxed
{
Type value;
template< class Arg >
Boxed(
Arg const& v,
typename enable_if< is_same< Type, Arg >::value, Arg >::type* = 0
)
: value( v )
{
wcout << "Generic!" << endl;
}
Boxed( Type&& v ): value( move( v ) )
{
wcout << "Rvalue!" << endl;
}
};
void function( Boxed< int > v ) {}
int main()
{
int i = 5;
function( i ); //<- this is acceptable
char c = 'a';
function( c ); //<- I would NOT like this to compile
}
I first tried PiotrNycz's approach (for C++03, which I'm forced to use for a project), then I tried to find a more general approach and came up with this ForcedType<T> template class.
template <typename T>
struct ForcedType {
ForcedType(T v): m_v(v) {}
operator T&() { return m_v; }
operator const T&() const { return m_v; }
private:
template <typename T2>
ForcedType(T2);
T m_v;
};
template <typename T>
struct ForcedType<const T&> {
ForcedType(const T& v): m_v(v) {}
operator const T&() const { return m_v; }
private:
template <typename T2>
ForcedType(const T2&);
const T& m_v;
};
template <typename T>
struct ForcedType<T&> {
ForcedType(T& v): m_v(v) {}
operator T&() { return m_v; }
operator const T&() const { return m_v; }
private:
template <typename T2>
ForcedType(T2&);
T& m_v;
};
If I'm not mistaken, those three specializations should cover all common use cases. I'm not sure if a specialization for rvalue-reference (on C++11 onwards) is actually needed or the by-value one suffices.
One would use it like this, in case of a function with 3 parameters whose 3rd parameter doesn't allow implicit conversions:
function(ParamType1 param1, ParamType2 param2, ForcedType<ParamType3> param3);
I have a template function:
template<typename T>
void foo(const T& value) { bar(value); x = -1; }
I want to specialize it for a set of types:
template<>
void foo<char>(const char& value) { bar(value); x = 0; }
template<>
void foo<unsigned char>(const unsigned char& value) { bar(value); x = 1; }
It works ok. When I compile this:
template<>
void foo<char*>(const char*& value) { bar(value); x = 2; }
I get an error:
error C2912: explicit specialization; 'void foo(const char *&)' is not a specialization of a function template
Is it possible to specialize with char* pointer type parameter without typedef'ing it?
Sure. Try this:
template<>
void foo<char*>(char* const& value) {...}
This is because const char* means pointer to const char, not a const pointer to char.
You should generally just avoid function template specializations: you'll have far less problems if you provide non-template overloads instead. Read more: Why Not Specialize Function Templates?