Related
I have a serialization streaming operator as a free function like this:
struct MyClass {
static size_t size() { return 24; } // whatever my expected size is
X x; Y y;
};
Archive& operator<<(Archive& ar, MyClass& c) {
ar << c.x;
ar << c.y;
return ar;
}
I have lots of classes and and free function operators like this.
I would like to add a static_assert compile-time check that will fire automatically to do a size check on MyClass (for the case where some developer has added a field to MyClass and forgotten to serialize it). It will call MyClass::size() to get the expected size and compare against sizeof(MyClass).
I don't want to change all the operator<< definitions to do this. It's tedious, error-prone and it won't implement the original intent: to automatically run the check without having the developer to explicitly write the check (since that'll never happen). Also, the serialization code is from a library, so I don't want to change the original code.
I was thinking that--with metaprogramming--I can let Archive know that I'm serializing MyClass. Then it can do a check like this:
static_assert(sizeof(MyClass) == MyClass::size();
But how to do this? If I make Archive expect a template parameter whose value is MyClass, then every line in the operator<< will have to change since each ar will be an instance of a different class:
Archive<MyClass>& operator<<(Archive<MyClass>& ar, MyClass& c) {
Archive<X> arX; arX << c.x;
Archive<Y> arY; arY << c.y;
return ar;
}
Any brilliant ideas? Thank you!
To me, this is only effective if the constant comes from the overload, and you can't snuff the error without updating the overload specifically instead of some class method.
But as you mentioned, you can't add an argument to the << operator. Let's try anyway, since you hinted that you can update the signature, by converting it to a function:
template <size_t N>
using ExpectedSize = std::integral_constant<size_t, N>;
Archive& Serialize(Archive& ar, MyClass& c, ExpectedSize<24>) {
ar << c.x;
ar << c.y;
return ar;
}
Then, invoke that from a catch-all overload:
template <typename T>
Archive& operator <<(Archive ar, T&& c) {
return Serialize(ar, c, ExpectedSize<sizeof(typename std::remove_reference<T>::type)>{});
}
// non-template overloads for basic primitives
Archive& operator <<(Archive& ar, int c) { return ar; }
Archive& operator <<(Archive& ar, const char* c) { return ar; }
Now, when you run the code and sizeof(MyClass) == 16 instead of 24, you get this error:
error: no matching function for call to 'Serialize(Archive&, MyClass&, ExpectedSize<16>)'
...
note: candidate: 'Archive& Serialize(Archive&, MyClass&, ExpectedSize<24>)'
Demo: https://godbolt.org/z/sBFtBR
If you really wanted a more specific error message, you can add a template to catch the missing overloads:
template <typename T, size_t N>
Archive& Serialize(Archive& ar, T&& c, ExpectedSize<N>) {
static_assert(sizeof(typename std::remove_reference<T>::type) != N, "Serializer needs to be updated");
}
Then your error message becomes:
<source>: In instantiation of 'Archive& Serialize(Archive&, T&&, ExpectedSize<N>) [with T = MyClass&; long unsigned int N = 16; ExpectedSize<N> = std::integral_constant<long unsigned int, 16>]':
<source>:11:21: required from 'Archive& operator<<(Archive, T&&) [with T = MyClass&]'
<source>:40:12: required from here
<source>:34:67: error: static assertion failed: Serializer needs to be updated
Demo: https://godbolt.org/z/wQAvGg
Since your final goal is to enforce consistency between serialization functions and class definitions, you may as well consider automatic generation of serialization methods. This would be more involved than the accepted answer, but may save you some time in long term. I know of two approaches both of which require some nasty tricks: one relies on wrapper classes as descibed here http://cplusplus.bordoon.com/dark_side.html, another is to use xmacro technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Macro to be able to do something like this in the end -> https://github.com/asherikov/ariles#example.
Here's what I came up with. Basically I uses #parktomatomi's idea of a user-written Serialize routine, but now it gets called by a catch-all
template<class T> operator<<(Archive&, T& c)
that also does the static_assert for the size check.
struct B {
constexpr static size_t size() { return 20; }
int y = 200;
};
struct C {
constexpr static size_t size() { return 10; }
int x = 100;
B b;
};
template<typename T>
Archive& Serialize(Archive& ar, T& c) {
abort(); // Should never get here
}
Archive& operator <<(Archive& ar, int x) {
std::cout << "ar << " << x << std::endl;
return ar;
}
template <typename T>
Archive& operator <<(Archive& ar, T& c) {
static_assert(sizeof(T) == T::size());
return Serialize<T>(ar, c);
}
template<>
Archive& Serialize(Archive& ar, B& b) {
std::cout << "ar<B> << " << b.y << std::endl;
ar << b.y;
return ar;
}
template<>
Archive& Serialize(Archive& ar, C& c) {
std::cout << "ar<B> << " << c.x << std::endl;
ar << c.b;
ar << c.x;
return ar;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
Archive ar;
C c;
ar << c;
//std::cout << foo(2);
}
It produces
a.cpp: In instantiation of âArchive& operator<<(Archive&, T&) [with T = B]â:
a.cpp:91:11: required from here
a.cpp:77:27: error: static assertion failed
static_assert(sizeof(T) == T::size());
~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~
a.cpp: In instantiation of âArchive& operator<<(Archive&, T&) [with T = C]â:
a.cpp:100:9: required from here
a.cpp:77:27: error: static assertion failed
Now I need to come up with a better message.
There are a few questions on SO that address passing function pointers as parameters/arguments (here, here, here, etc.). In fact, I asked a related question the other day. However, this question is a little different.
My problem is that I am writing a class that I want to be extremely flexible.
What I have now works for non-member functions. It is posted below
template <typename T>
class MyClass
{
private:
typedef double (*firstFunctionPtr) (const T &var);
typedef bool (*secondFunctionPtr)(const T &var);
// Function pointers as member variables
firstFunctionPtr _firstFunc;
secondFunctionPtr _secondFunc;
public:
inline MyClass(firstFunctionPtr firstFunc,
secondFunctionPtr secondFunc);
};
template<typename T>
MyClass<T>::MyClass(firstFunctionPtr firstFunc, secondFunctionPtr secondFunc) :
_firstFunc(firstFunc),
_secondFunc(secondFunc),
{}
However, this falls apart when I need to initialize with a pointer to a member function of some other, arbitrary, class, which, unfortunately for me, happens to be a common use case for my purposes.
This answer suggests that
In a proper C++ interface you might want to have a look at having your function take templated argument for function objects to use arbitrary class types.
However, I have not been able to make this compile. I've tried templating my typedefs (using the C++11 aliasing approach), and I've tried adding a second template parameter to the class to handle the calling class of those member functions, but neither approach has worked.
This Q/A seems to be getting towards what I'm trying to do, but I can't make heads or tails of it.
Can someone please explain how I might modify my class to handle arbitrary member functions pointers being passed in?
Furthermore, is it possible to make it so that it can handle either arbitrary member functions or non-member functions?
Lastly, is it possible to do this with templates?
For the record, I'm trying to avoid using the functional header, but it may be a fool's errand not to use it.
If you want MyClass to be a template that can hold both free function
pointers of types:
double (*)(const T &var);
bool (*)(const T &var);
for some parameter type T, or alternatively member-function
pointers of types:
double (C::*)(const T &var);
bool (C::*)(const T &var);
for some parameter types C and T then, MyClass must be parameterized
by both T and C and you require two specializations:
Where C is some non-class type
Where C is any class type
In case (1), the non-class type C cannot possibly have member functions,
so that one will implement the free-function pointer specialization.
In case (2), the class C could be one that has member functions, so that one
will implement the member-function pointer specialization.
The obvious choice for a non-class type C is void. So we can make C
default to void:
Primary template
template<typename T, typename C = void>
struct MyClass;
So that:
MyClass<T>
will be the free function pointer specialization for T, and:
MyClass<T,C>
for any C other than void, will be the member-function pointer specialization.
As you may know you can use std::enable_if
and SFINAE to make the compiler
chose one specialization of a class template or another, depending on whether one
of its template parameters U satisfies some compiletime test. You could take
that approach here, but another one is available that does not require that apparatus:
Starting with the primary template, we would just like to have:
Free function specialization
template<typename T>
struct MyClass<T>
{
... for free function pointers ...
};
and:
Member function specialization
template<typename T, typename C>
struct MyClass<T,C>
{
... for member function pointers ...
};
But we can't have just that, because the member function "specialization" has exactly
the same template parameters as the primary template. Which means it isn't
a specialization, and the compiler won't allow it.
You can easily remove that problem, however, simply by giving the primary
template one more defaulting template parameter that it doesn't need, but whose
presence allows both those specializations to stand.
New primary template
template <typename T, typename C = void, typename Default = void>
struct MyClass;
So here is an illustrative solution:
// Primary template
template <typename T, typename C = void, typename Default = void>
struct MyClass;
// Free function specialization
template <typename T>
struct MyClass<T>
{
using firstFunctor_t = double(*)(T const &);
using secondFunctor_t = bool(*)(T const &);
MyClass(firstFunctor_t firstFunc, secondFunctor_t secondFunc)
: _firstFunc(firstFunc),
_secondFunc(secondFunc)
{}
double callFirst(T const & var) {
return _firstFunc(var);
}
bool callSecond(T const & var) {
return _secondFunc(var);
}
private:
firstFunctor_t _firstFunc;
secondFunctor_t _secondFunc;
};
// Member function specialization
template <typename T, typename C>
struct MyClass<T,C>
{
using firstFunctor_t = double(C::*)(T const &);
using secondFunctor_t = bool(C::*)(T const &) const;
MyClass(firstFunctor_t firstFunc, secondFunctor_t secondFunc)
: _firstFunc(firstFunc),
_secondFunc(secondFunc)
{}
double callFirst(C & obj, T const & var) {
return (obj.*_firstFunc)(var);
}
double callFirst(C const & obj, T const & var) {
auto & o = const_cast<C&>(obj);
return (o.*_firstFunc)(var);
}
bool callSecond(C & obj, T const & var) {
return (obj.*_secondFunc)(var);
}
bool callSecond(C const & obj, T const & var) {
auto & o = const_cast<C&>(obj);
return (o.*_secondFunc)(var);
}
private:
firstFunctor_t _firstFunc;
secondFunctor_t _secondFunc;
};
In the member function specialization, notice a couple of points that you might
not have considered:-
I decided that the second member function I want to store shall be a
const member function. It's more than likely that a member function of C
that take a T const & argument and returns bool will be a const member
function, isn't it? And if so, then that const-ness has to be part of
the member-function type definition that I use in the specialization:
using secondFunctor_t = bool(C::*)(T const &) const;
or attempts to instantiate the specialization with any bool (C::*)(T const &) const
will fail to compile.
Also, I have provided two overloads for each of MyClass<T,C>::callFirst
and MyClass<T,C>::callSecond, one with arguments:
C & obj, T const & var
and another with arguments:
C const & obj, T const & var
Without the second, attempts to call either MyClass<T,C>::callFirst
or MyClass<T,C>::callSecond with an obj that is const will fail to
compile.
For program to demo this solution you can append:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
double foo(std::string const & s)
{
return std::stod(s);
}
bool bar(std::string const & s)
{
return s.size() > 0;
}
struct SomeClass
{
SomeClass(){};
double foo(std::string const & s) {
return ::foo(s);
}
bool bar(std::string const & s) const {
return ::bar(s);
}
};
int main()
{
MyClass<std::string> my0{foo,bar};
std::cout << std::boolalpha;
std::cout << my0.callFirst("1.11") << std::endl;
std::cout << my0.callSecond("Hello World") << std::endl;
MyClass<std::string,SomeClass> my1{&SomeClass::foo,&SomeClass::bar};
SomeClass thing;
std::cout << my1.callFirst(thing,"2.22") << std::endl;
std::cout << my1.callSecond(thing,"Hello World") << std::endl;
SomeClass const constThing;
std::cout << my1.callFirst(constThing,"3.33") << std::endl;
std::cout << my1.callSecond(constThing,"Hello World") << std::endl;
return 0;
}
See it live
You said that you want this template to be "extremely flexible". The
illustrated solution is fitted to your example, but you might be
interested in know that it isn't nearly as flexible as you could get.
For both free functions and member functions, with additional variadic template
parameters, your template could store and call [member] functions with
arbitary return types and arbitary numbers of arguments of arbitrary types.
See this question and
answer.
I will sugest to create a helper object which will store the type you want to work with:
template <typename RETURN, typename TYPE, typename CLASS>
struct function_pointer
{ using type_t = RETURN (CLASS::*)(const TYPE &); };
template <typename RETURN, typename TYPE>
struct function_pointer<RETURN, TYPE, std::nullptr_t>
{ using type_t = RETURN (*)(const TYPE &); };
This type will create a member-function-pointer if a class is provided as third parameter and a function-pointer otherwise. Now, we can use this helper in MyClass:
template <typename T, typename CLASS = std::nullptr_t>
class MyClass
{
using firstFunctionPtr = typename function_pointer<double, T, CLASS>::type_t;
using secondFunctionPtr = typename function_pointer<bool, T, CLASS>::type_t;
// Function pointers as member variables
firstFunctionPtr _firstFunc;
secondFunctionPtr _secondFunc;
public:
inline MyClass(firstFunctionPtr firstFunc, secondFunctionPtr secondFunc) :
_firstFunc(firstFunc),
_secondFunc(secondFunc)
{}
void call_first(CLASS &c, const T&v) { (c.*_firstFunc)(v); }
void call_second(CLASS &c, const T&v) { (c.*_secondFunc)(v); }
void call_first(const T&v) { (_firstFunc)(v); }
void call_second(const T&v) { (_secondFunc)(v); }
};
I've added call_* functions just to show a use case, which will be as below:
// Some class with the expected function signatures
struct S1
{
int i = 0;
double d(const int &) { std::cout << i << ' ' << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << '\n'; return{}; }
bool b(const int &) { std::cout << i << ' ' << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << '\n'; return{}; }
};
// Another class with the expected function signatures
struct S2
{
double d(const int &) { std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << '\n'; return{}; }
bool b(const int &) { std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << '\n'; return{}; }
};
// Free function with which could have the expected function signature
template <typename R>
R f(const int &) { std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << '\n'; return{}; }
Using MyClass with an arbitrary class (S1):
S1 a{1}, b{2};
S2 c, d;
MyClass<int, S1> MCiS1(&S1::d, &S1::b);
MCiS1.call_first(a, 111); // Prints -> 1 double S1::d(const int&)
MCiS1.call_second(b, 222); // Prints -> 2 bool S1::b(const int&)
MCiS1.call_first(c, 111); // Error decltype(c) is not S1.
MCiS1.call_second(d, 222); // Error decltype(d) is not S1.
Using MyClass with a different class (S2):
MyClass<int, S2> MCiS2(&S2::d, &S2::b);
MCiS2.call_first(c, 111); // Prints -> double S2::d(const int&)
MCiS2.call_second(d, 222); // Prints -> bool S2::b(const int&)
MCiS2.call_first(a, 111); // Error decltype(c) is not S2.
MCiS2.call_second(b, 222); // Error decltype(d) is not S2.
Using MyClass with non-member functions:
MyClass<int> MCi(f<double>, f<bool>);
MCi.call_first(111); // Prints -> R f(const int&) [with R = double]
MCi.call_second(222); // Prints -> R f(const int&) [with R = bool]
Check the live demo Here.
All you need to do is bind the object instance for the member function pointer as a first argument.
struct foo {
float bar1(const type &var);
bool bar2(const type &var);
};
foo my_foo;
auto f1 = std::bind(&foo::bar1, my_foo, _1);
auto f2 = std::bind(&foo::bar2, my_foo, _1);
MyClass<type> my_obj(f1, f2);
I am doing a small research here, which requires at some stage, that I have different classes doing (or not doing) operation on some data, depending on its constness.
A small example is like this (http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/75c29cddbe6d8ef6)
#include <iostream>
template <class T>
class funny
{
public:
funny(T& a) : v(a) {v -= 1; }
virtual ~funny() { v += 1; }
operator T() {return v;}
private:
T& v;
};
#define V(a) funny<decltype(a)>(a)
int main()
{
char t[] = "ABC"; // <-- HERE
if( V( t[0] ) == (char)'A')
{
std::cout << "Pass" << t[0];
}
else
{
std::cout << "No Pass" << t[0];
}
}
Now, comes the question:
if I modify the line marked <-- HERE to be
const char t[] = "ABC";
I get the following compilation error:
main.cpp: In instantiation of 'funny<T>::funny(T&) [with T = const char&]':
main.cpp:21:7: required from here
main.cpp:7:28: error: assignment of read-only location '((funny<const char&>*)this)->funny<const char&>::v'
funny(T& a) : v(a) {v -= 1; }
~~^~~~
main.cpp: In instantiation of 'funny<T>::~funny() [with T = const char&]':
main.cpp:21:7: required from here
main.cpp:8:27: error: assignment of read-only location '((funny<const char&>*)this)->funny<const char&>::v'
virtual ~funny() { v += 1; }
~~^~~~
Which is totally understandable, since I try to modify a constant. Compiler is right here. However, I really need this to work also for const data, so I tried to create a const specialization of the template:
template <class T>
class funny <T const>
{
public:
funny(const T& a) : v(a) {}
operator T() {return v;}
private:
const T& v;
};
But regardless, the compiler does not find it, and still tries to compile the non-const version.
Any ideas on how to make this happen?
decltype(t[0]) deduces to const char&, which doesn't match your const char specialization. You have two options:
1) Change your specialization to template <class T> class funny <T const&>. That will work for this case, but won't work for const int FOO = 42; V(FOO);.
2) Change your V macro to always deduce to a non-reference type:
#define V(a) funny<typename std::remove_reference<decltype(a)>::type>(a)
Compiles if you change:
template <class T>
class funny <T const>
to:
template <class T>
class funny <const T&>
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);
Please, consider the code below:
template<typename T>
bool function1(T some_var) { return true; }
template <typename T>
bool (*function2())(T) {
return function1<T>;
}
void function3( bool(*input_function)(char) ) {}
If I call
function3(function2<char>());
it is ok. But if I call
function3(function2());
compiler gives the error that it is not able to deduction the argument for template.
Could you, please, advise (give an idea) how to rewrite function1 and/or function2 (may be, fundamentally to rewrite using classes) to make it ok?
* Added *
I am trying to do something simple like lambda expressions in Boost.LambdaLib (may be, I am on a wrong way):
sort(some_vector.begin(), some_vector.end(), _1 < _2)
I did this:
template<typename T>
bool my_func_greater (const T& a, const T& b) {
return a > b;
}
template<typename T>
bool my_func_lesser (const T& a, const T& b) {
return b > a;
}
class my_comparing {
public:
int value;
my_comparing(int value) : value(value) {}
template <typename T>
bool (*operator<(const my_comparing& another) const)(const T&, const T&) {
if (this->value == 1 && another.value == 2) {
return my_func_greater<T>;
} else {
return my_func_greater<T>;
}
}
};
const my_comparing& m_1 = my_comparing(1);
const my_comparing& m_2 = my_comparing(2);
It works:
sort(a, a + 5, m_1.operator< <int>(m_2));
But I want that it doesn't require template argument as in LambdaLib.
Deduction from return type is not possible. So function2 can't be deduced from what return type you expect.
It is however possible to deduce cast operator. So you can replace function2 with a helper structure like: Unfortunately there is no standard syntax for declaring cast operator to function pointer without typedef and type deduction won't work through typedef. Following definition works in some compilers (works in G++ 4.5, does not work in VC++ 9):
struct function2 {
template <typename T>
(*operator bool())(T) {
return function1<T>;
}
};
(see also C++ Conversion operator for converting to function pointer).
The call should than still look the same.
Note: C++11 introduces alternative typedef syntax which can be templated. It would be like:
struct function2 {
template <typename T>
using ftype = bool(*)(T);
template <typename T>
operator ftype<T>() {
return function1<T>;
}
};
but I have neither G++ 4.7 nor VC++ 10 at hand, so I can't test whether it actually works.
Ad Added:
The trick in Boost.Lambda is that it does not return functions, but functors. And functors can be class templates. So you'd have:
template<typename T>
bool function1(T some_var) { return true; }
class function2 {
template <typename T>
bool operator()(T t) {
function1<T>;
}
};
template <typename F>
void function3( F input_function ) { ... input_function(something) ... }
Now you can write:
function3(function2);
and it's going to resolve the template inside function3. All STL takes functors as templates, so that's going to work with all STL.
However if don't want to have function3 as a template, there is still a way. Unlike function pointer, the std::function (C++11 only, use boost::function for older compilers) template can be constructed from any functor (which includes plain function pointers). So given the above, you can write:
void function3(std::function<bool ()(char)> input_function) { ... input_function(something) ... }
and now you can still call:
function3(function2());
The point is that std::function has a template constructor that internally generates a template wrapper and stores a pointer to it's method, which is than callable without further templates.
Compiler don't use context of expression to deduce its template parameters. For compiler, function3(function2()); looks as
auto tmp = function2();
function3(tmp);
And it don't know what function2 template parameter is.
After your edit, I think what you want to do can be done simpler. See the following type:
struct Cmp {
bool const reverse;
Cmp(bool reverse) : reverse(reverse) {}
template <typename T> bool operator()(T a, T b) {
return reverse != (a < b);
}
};
Now, in your operator< you return an untyped Cmp instance depending on the order of your arguments, i.e. m_2 < m_1 would return Cmp(true) and m_1 < m_2 would return Cmp(false).
Since there is a templated operator() in place, the compiler will deduce the right function inside sort, not at your call to sort.
I am not sure if this help you and I am not an expert on this. I have been watching this post since yesterday and I want to participate in this.
The template cannot deduce it's type because the compiler does not know what type you are expecting to return. Following is a simple example which is similar to your function2().
template<typename T>
T foo() {
T t;
return t;
};
call this function
foo(); // no type specified. T cannot be deduced.
Is it possible to move the template declaration to the class level as follows:
template<typename T>
bool my_func_greater (const T& a, const T& b) {
return a > b;
}
template<typename T>
bool my_func_lesser (const T& a, const T& b) {
return b > a;
}
template <typename T>
class my_comparing {
public:
int value;
my_comparing(int value) : value(value) {}
bool (*operator<(const my_comparing& another) const)(const T&, const T&) {
if (this->value == 1 && another.value == 2) {
return my_func_greater<T>;
} else {
return my_func_greater<T>;
}
}
};
and declare m_1 and m_2 as below:
const my_comparing<int>& m_1 = my_comparing<int>(1);
const my_comparing<int>& m_2 = my_comparing<int>(2);
Now you can compare as follows:
if( m_1 < m_2 )
cout << "m_1 is less than m_2" << endl;
else
cout << "m_1 is greater than m_2" << endl;
I know this is simple and everyone knows this. As nobody posted this, I want to give a try.