Assume that there is a function which accepts several strings:
void fun (const std::initializer_list<std::string>& strings) {
for(auto s : strings)
// do something
}
Now, I have a variadic template function say foo() as:
template<typename ...Args>
void foo () {
fun(???);
}
This method is called externally as:
foo<A, B, C, D>(); // where A, B, C, D are classes
And these classes which are passed as arguments are expected to contain a common static const member:
static const std::string value = "...";
Here are my questions (how to):
When inside foo(), check if all the Args contain value using
static_assert
Pass all such values to fun() to form an initializer_list; e.g.
fun({A::value, B::value, ...});
Searched several threads related to variadic templates and its unpacking but I am still novice in this area. Explanation in little more detail is much appreciated.
As for the second question, just do it this way:
template<typename ...Args>
void foo () {
fun({Args::value...});
}
The mechanism is pretty intuitive: you create an initalizer list that contains the expanded Args::value pattern, thus resolving (in your case) to { A::value, B::value, C::value, D::value }.
Here is a complete program:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
void fun (const std::initializer_list<std::string>& strings) {
for(auto s : strings)
{
std::cout << s << " ";
}
}
template<typename ...Args>
void foo () {
fun({Args::value...});
}
struct A { static std::string value; };
struct B { static std::string value; };
struct C { static std::string value; };
struct D { static std::string value; };
std::string A::value = "Hello";
std::string B::value = "World";
std::string C::value = "of";
std::string D::value = "Variadic Templates";
int main()
{
foo<A, B, C, D>(); // where A, B, C, D are classes
}
And here is a live example.
As for the static assertion, you may write a type trait that determines whether a certain type has a member variable value:
template<typename T, typename V = bool>
struct has_value : std::false_type { };
template<typename T>
struct has_value<T,
typename std::enable_if<
!std::is_same<decltype(std::declval<T>().value), void>::value,
bool
>::type
> : std::true_type
{
typedef decltype(std::declval<T>().value) type;
};
Then, you could use it this way:
template<typename T>
struct check_has_value
{
static_assert(has_value<T>::value, "!");
};
template<typename ...Args>
void foo () {
auto l = { (check_has_value<Args>(), 0)... };
fun({Args::value...});
}
Here is a live example of a successful check (all classes has a value data member). Here is a live example of an unsuccessful check (class D's data member is called values)
The second part is easier:
template<typename ...Args>
void foo () {
fun({Args::value...});
}
The first part is tricky, because static_assert is a declaration, not an expression, so you'd have to expand the variadic pack within the first parameter. It may be easier just to let the call to fun do the checking for you. Here's a sketch of how to do it with an auxiliary all constexpr function:
constexpr bool all() { return true; }
template<typename... Args> constexpr bool all(bool first, Args&&... rest) {
return first && all(rest...);
}
template<typename ...Args>
void foo () {
static_assert(all(std::is_convertible<decltype(Args::value),
std::string>::value...), "All Args must have a value");
fun({Args::value...});
}
Here's an answer to both points:
#include <initializer_list>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <type_traits>
using namespace std;
void fun (const std::initializer_list<std::string>& strings) {
for(auto s : strings)
cout << s << endl;
}
// This uses SFINAE to find if there's a string T::value in T
template <typename T>
struct HasValue
{
typedef char OK; //sizeof() guaranteed 1
struct BAD { char x[2]; }; //sizeof() guaranteed >1
template <const string *>
struct Helper;
template <typename X>
static OK has(X*, Helper<&X::value>* = nullptr); //SF if &X::value is not a const string*
static BAD has(...); //will be picked in SF case
static const bool value = (sizeof(has((T*)nullptr)) == sizeof(OK));
};
// This template (and its specialisation) ensure all args have ::value
template <typename H, typename... T>
struct HaveValue : public integral_constant<bool, HasValue<H>::value && HaveValue<T...>::value>
{};
template <typename H>
struct HaveValue<H> : public HasValue<H>
{};
template <typename... Args>
void foo() {
static_assert(HaveValue<Args...>::value, "All arguments must have const string ::value");
fun({Args::value...}); //answer to point 2: create the initialiser list
}
// Example data follow
struct A
{
static const string value;
};
const string A::value = "AA";
struct B
{
static const string value;
};
const string B::value = "BB";
struct C{};
int main()
{
foo<A, B>();
//foo<A, B, C>(); //uncomment to have the static assertion fire
}
See it live.
Related
I am writing an Abstract Factory using C++ templates and was hit by a small obstacle. Namely, a generic class T may provide one or more of the following ways to construct objects:
static T* T::create(int arg);
T(int arg);
T();
I am writing the abstract factory class so that it can automatically try these three potential constructions in the given order:
template <class T>
class Factory {
public:
T* create(int arg) {
return T::create(arg); // first preference
return new T(arg); // this if above does not exist
return new T; // this if above does not exist
// compiler error if none of the three is provided by class T
}
};
How do I achieve this with C++ template? Thank you.
Something along this line should work:
struct S { static auto create(int) { return new S; } };
struct T { T(int) {} };
struct U {};
template<int N> struct tag: tag<N-1> {};
template<> struct tag<0> {};
class Factory {
template<typename C>
auto create(tag<2>, int N) -> decltype(C::create(N)) {
return C::create(N);
}
template<typename C>
auto create(tag<1>, int N) -> decltype(new C{N}) {
return new C{N};
}
template<typename C>
auto create(tag<0>, ...) {
return new C{};
}
public:
template<typename C>
auto create(int N) {
return create<C>(tag<2>{}, N);
}
};
int main() {
Factory factory;
factory.create<S>(0);
factory.create<T>(0);
factory.create<U>(0);
}
It's based on sfinae and tag dispatching techniques.
The basic idea is that you forward the create function of your factory to a set of internal functions. These functions test the features you are looking for in order because of the presence of tag and are discarded if the test fail. Because of sfinae, as long as one of them succeeds, the code compiles and everything works as expected.
Here is a similar solution in C++17:
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
#include <utility>
struct S { static auto create(int) { return new S; } };
struct T { T(int) {} };
struct U {};
template<typename C> constexpr auto has_create(int) -> decltype(C::create(std::declval<int>()), bool{}) { return true; }
template<typename C> constexpr auto has_create(char) { return false; }
struct Factory {
template<typename C>
auto create(int N) {
if constexpr(has_create<C>(0)) {
std::cout << "has create" << std::endl;
return C::create(N);
} else if constexpr(std::is_constructible_v<C, int>) {
std::cout << "has proper constructor" << std::endl;
return new C{N};
} else {
std::cout << "well, do it and shut up" << std::endl;
(void)N;
return C{};
}
}
};
int main() {
Factory factory;
factory.create<S>(0);
factory.create<T>(0);
factory.create<U>(0);
}
Thanks to #StoryTeller and #Jarod42 for the help in this difficult morning.
See it up and running on wandbox.
Okay, thanks to the answer by #skypjack I was able to come up with a more compatible solution that works with pre c++11 compilers. The core idea is the same, i.e. using tag dispatching for ordered testing. Instead of relying on decltype, I used sizeof and a dummy class for SFINAE.
struct S { static auto create(int) { return new S; } };
struct T { T(int) {} };
struct U {};
template<class C, int=sizeof(C::create(0))> struct test_1 { typedef int type; };
template<class C, int=sizeof(C(0))> struct test_2 { typedef int type; };
template<class C, int=sizeof(C())> struct test_3 { typedef int type; };
template<int N> struct priority: priority<N-1> {};
template<> struct priority<0> {};
class Factory {
template<typename C>
C* create(priority<2>, typename test_1<C>::type N) {
return C::create(N);
}
template<typename C>
C* create(priority<1>, typename test_2<C>::type N) {
return new C(N);
}
template<typename C>
C* create(priority<0>, typename test_3<C>::type N) {
return new C();
}
public:
template<typename C>
C* create(int N) {
return create<C>(priority<2>(), N);
}
};
int main() {
Factory factory;
factory.create<S>(0);
factory.create<T>(0);
factory.create<U>(0);
}
Not sure if it is even possible to stuff the sizeof part into the private function signatures; if so, we can get rid of the dummy classes as well.(failed) The slightly ugly part is to use constants (0 in this case) for sizeof operator, which may get tricky if the constructors take arguments of very complicated types.
Given some existing functors:
struct incr {
int operator()(int x) const { return x + 1; }
};
struct rep_str {
std::string operator()(const std::string& s) const { return s + s; }
};
I'm wondering if it's possible to achieve something like this:
auto f = overload<incr, rep_str>();
f(1); // returns 2
f("hello"); // returns "hellohello"
Multiple overloads may look like:
auto f = overload<fa, fb, fc, ...>();
// or...
auto g = overload<fa, overload<fb, overload<fc, ...>>>();
I'm thinking maybe use SFINAE with std::result_of_t or something like that, but haven't figured out how.
You don't need anything too fancy: just inherit from all the arguments and use using-declarations to bring in operator() from the base classes. However, in the variadic case, you can't have a pack expansion in a using-declaration, so you have to use a recursive approach, like so:
template <class... Ts>
struct overload {}; // only used for empty pack
template <class T>
struct overload<T> : private T {
using T::operator();
};
template <class T1, class T2, class... Ts>
struct overload<T1, T2, Ts...> : private T1, overload<T2, Ts...> {
using T1::operator();
using overload<T2, Ts...>::operator();
};
Brian's answer is better, IMHO, but since I worked on it, here's mine:
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
template <typename... Fns>
struct overload;
template <typename Fn, typename... Fns>
struct overload<Fn, Fns...>
{
template <typename... T>
std::result_of_t<Fn(T...)> operator()(T && ... args) const {
return Fn()(std::forward<T>(args)...);
}
using next = overload<Fns...>;
template <typename... T>
std::result_of_t<next(T...)> operator()(T && ... args) const {
return next()(std::forward<T>(args)...);
}
};
this can be done using template specialization:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
template <typename...Args>
struct overload{
};
template <> struct overload<int>{
int operator()(int x) const { return x + 1; }
};
template <> struct overload< std::string>{
std::string operator()(const std::string& s) const { return s + s; }
};
template <typename...Args >
auto f(Args...arg){
overload<Args...> func;
return func(arg...);
}
int main()
{
std::cout << f(3) << std::endl << f(std::string("Hello"));
}
Note: two answers by #Brian and #md5i more general and elegant and perfect and better than this.
I am purposely using the very same title as this question because I feel that the answer that was accepted does not account for a problem that I am stuck into.
I am looking for a way to detect if some class has some member variable. It is fundamental to note that I am looking for a variable, not a member function or anything else.
Here is the example provided in the question I linked:
template<typename T> struct HasX {
struct Fallback { int x; }; // introduce member name "x"
struct Derived : T, Fallback { };
template<typename C, C> struct ChT;
template<typename C> static char (&f(ChT<int Fallback::*, &C::x>*))[1];
template<typename C> static char (&f(...))[2];
static bool const value = sizeof(f<Derived>(0)) == 2;
};
struct A { int x; };
struct B { int X; };
int main() {
std::cout << HasX<A>::value << std::endl; // 1
std::cout << HasX<B>::value << std::endl; // 0
}
But we will get the very same output if we do something like
template<typename T> struct HasX {
struct Fallback { int x; }; // introduce member name "x"
struct Derived : T, Fallback { };
template<typename C, C> struct ChT;
template<typename C> static char (&f(ChT<int Fallback::*, &C::x>*))[1];
template<typename C> static char (&f(...))[2];
static bool const value = sizeof(f<Derived>(0)) == 2;
};
struct A {
void x()
{
}
};
struct B { int X; };
int main() {
std::cout << HasX<A>::value << std::endl; // 1
std::cout << HasX<B>::value << std::endl; // 0
}
(Please note that in the second example the int x in A was substituted with a member function void x()).
I have no real idea on how to work around this problem. I partially fixed this by doing something like
template <bool, typename> class my_helper_class;
template <typename ctype> class my_helper_class <true, ctype>
{
static bool const value = std :: is_member_object_pointer <decltype(&ctype :: x)> :: value;
};
template <typename ctype> class my_helper_class <false, ctype>
{
static bool const value = false;
};
template <typename T> struct HasX
{
// ...
static bool const value = my_helper_class <sizeof(f <Derived>(0)) == 2, T> :: value;
};
Which actually selects if I am using an object. However, the above doesn't work if there are more overloaded functions with the same name x in my class.
For example if I do
struct A
{
void x()
{
}
void x(int)
{
}
};
Then the pointer is not resolved successfully and the a call to HasX <A> doesn't compile.
What am I supposed to do? Is there any workaround or simpler way to get this done?
The problem is that HasX only checks if the name x exists. The ... gets selected if &C::x is ambiguous (which happens if it matches both in Fallback and T). The ChT<> overload gets selected only if &C::x is exactly Fallback::x. At no point are we actually checking the type of T::x - so we never actually check if x is a variable or function or whatever.
The solution is: use C++11 and just check that &T::x is a member object pointer:
template <class T, class = void>
struct HasX
: std::false_type
{ };
template <class T>
struct HasX<T,
std::enable_if_t<
std::is_member_object_pointer<decltype(&T::x)>::value>
>
: std::true_type { };
If &T::x doesn't exist, substitution failure and we fallback to the primary template and get false_type. If &T::x exists but is an overloaded name, substitution failure. If &T::x exists but is a non-overloaded function, substitution failure on enable_if_t<false>. SFINAE for the win.
That works for all of these types:
struct A {
void x()
{
}
void x(int)
{
}
};
struct B { int X; };
struct C { int x; };
struct D { char x; };
int main() {
static_assert(!HasX<A>::value, "!");
static_assert(!HasX<B>::value, "!");
static_assert(HasX<C>::value, "!");
static_assert(HasX<D>::value, "!");
}
I have a template class where each template argument stands for one type of value the internal computation can handle. Templates (instead of function overloading) are needed because the values are passed as boost::any and their types are not clear before runtime.
To properly cast to the correct types, I would like to have a member list for each variadic argument type, something like this:
template<typename ...AcceptedTypes> // e.g. MyClass<T1, T2>
class MyClass {
std::vector<T1> m_argumentsOfType1;
std::vector<T2> m_argumentsOfType2; // ...
};
Or alternatively, I'd like to store the template argument types in a list, as to do some RTTI magic with it (?). But how to save them in a std::initializer_list member is also unclear to me.
Thanks for any help!
As you have already been hinted, the best way is to use a tuple:
template<typename ...AcceptedTypes> // e.g. MyClass<T1, T2>
class MyClass {
std::tuple<std::vector<AcceptedTypes>...> vectors;
};
This is the only way to multiply the "fields" because you cannot magically make it spell up the field names. Another important thing may be to get some named access to them. I guess that what you're trying to achieve is to have multiple vectors with unique types, so you can have the following facility to "search" for the correct vector by its value type:
template <class T1, class T2>
struct SameType
{
static const bool value = false;
};
template<class T>
struct SameType<T, T>
{
static const bool value = true;
};
template <typename... Types>
class MyClass
{
public:
typedef std::tuple<vector<Types>...> vtype;
vtype vectors;
template<int N, typename T>
struct VectorOfType: SameType<T,
typename std::tuple_element<N, vtype>::type::value_type>
{ };
template <int N, class T, class Tuple,
bool Match = false> // this =false is only for clarity
struct MatchingField
{
static vector<T>& get(Tuple& tp)
{
// The "non-matching" version
return MatchingField<N+1, T, Tuple,
VectorOfType<N+1, T>::value>::get(tp);
}
};
template <int N, class T, class Tuple>
struct MatchingField<N, T, Tuple, true>
{
static vector<T>& get(Tuple& tp)
{
return std::get<N>(tp);
}
};
template <typename T>
vector<T>& access()
{
return MatchingField<0, T, vtype,
VectorOfType<0, T>::value>::get(vectors);
}
};
Here is the testcase so you can try it out:
int main( int argc, char** argv )
{
int twelf = 12.5;
typedef reference_wrapper<int> rint;
MyClass<float, rint> mc;
vector<rint>& i = mc.access<rint>();
i.push_back(twelf);
mc.access<float>().push_back(10.5);
cout << "Test:\n";
cout << "floats: " << mc.access<float>()[0] << endl;
cout << "ints: " << mc.access<rint>()[0] << endl;
//mc.access<double>();
return 0;
}
If you use any type that is not in the list of types you passed to specialize MyClass (see this commented-out access for double), you'll get a compile error, not too readable, but gcc at least points the correct place that has caused the problem and at least such an error message suggests the correct cause of the problem - here, for example, if you tried to do mc.access<double>():
error: ‘value’ is not a member of ‘MyClass<float, int>::VectorOfType<2, double>’
An alternate solution that doesn't use tuples is to use CRTP to create a class hierarchy where each base class is a specialization for one of the types:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
template<class L, class... R> class My_class;
template<class L>
class My_class<L>
{
public:
protected:
L get()
{
return val;
}
void set(const L new_val)
{
val = new_val;
}
private:
L val;
};
template<class L, class... R>
class My_class : public My_class<L>, public My_class<R...>
{
public:
template<class T>
T Get()
{
return this->My_class<T>::get();
}
template<class T>
void Set(const T new_val)
{
this->My_class<T>::set(new_val);
}
};
int main(int, char**)
{
My_class<int, double, std::string> c;
c.Set<int>(4);
c.Set<double>(12.5);
c.Set<std::string>("Hello World");
std::cout << "int: " << c.Get<int>() << "\n";
std::cout << "double: " << c.Get<double>() << "\n";
std::cout << "string: " << c.Get<std::string>() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
One way to do such a thing, as mentioned in πάντα-ῥεῖ's comment is to use a tuple. What he didn't explain (probably to save you from yourself) is how that might look.
Here is an example:
using namespace std;
// define the abomination
template<typename...Types>
struct thing
{
thing(std::vector<Types>... args)
: _x { std::move(args)... }
{}
void print()
{
do_print_vectors(std::index_sequence_for<Types...>());
}
private:
template<std::size_t... Is>
void do_print_vectors(std::index_sequence<Is...>)
{
using swallow = int[];
(void)swallow{0, (print_one(std::get<Is>(_x)), 0)...};
}
template<class Vector>
void print_one(const Vector& v)
{
copy(begin(v), end(v), ostream_iterator<typename Vector::value_type>(cout, ","));
cout << endl;
}
private:
tuple<std::vector<Types>...> _x;
};
// test it
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(play_tuples)
{
thing<int, double, string> t {
{ 1, 2, 3, },
{ 1.1, 2.2, 3.3 },
{ "one"s, "two"s, "three"s }
};
t.print();
}
expected output:
1,2,3,
1.1,2.2,3.3,
one,two,three,
There is a proposal to allow this kind of expansion, with the intuitive syntax: P1858R1 Generalized pack declaration and usage. You can also initialize the members and access them by index. You can even support structured bindings by writing using... tuple_element = /*...*/:
template <typename... Ts>
class MyClass {
std::vector<Ts>... elems;
public:
using... tuple_element = std::vector<Ts>;
MyClass() = default;
explicit MyClass(std::vector<Ts>... args) noexcept
: elems(std::move(args))...
{
}
template <std::size_t I>
requires I < sizeof...(Ts)
auto& get() noexcept
{
return elems...[I];
}
template <std::size_t I>
requires I < sizeof...(Ts)
const auto& get() const
{
return elems...[I];
}
// ...
};
Then the class can be used like this:
using Vecs = MyClass<int, double>;
Vecs vecs{};
vecs.[0].resize(3, 42);
std::array<double, 4> arr{1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0};
vecs.[1] = {arr.[:]};
// print the elements
// note the use of vecs.[:] and Vecs::[:]
(std::copy(vecs.[:].begin(), vecs.[:].end(),
std::ostream_iterator<Vecs::[:]>{std::cout, ' '},
std::cout << '\n'), ...);
Here is a less than perfectly efficient implementation using boost::variant:
template<typename ... Ts>
using variant_vector = boost::variant< std::vector<Ts>... >;
template<typename ...Ts>
struct MyClass {
using var_vec = variant_vector<Ts...>;
std::array<var_vec, sizeof...(Ts)> vecs;
};
we create a variant-vector that can hold one of a list of types in it. You have to use boost::variant to get at the contents (which means knowing the type of the contents, or writing a visitor).
We then store an array of these variant vectors, one per type.
Now, if your class only ever holds one type of data, you can do away with the array, and just have one member of type var_vec.
I cannot see why you'd want one vector of each type. I could see wanting a vector where each element is one of any type. That would be a vector<variant<Ts...>>, as opposed to the above variant<vector<Ts>...>.
variant<Ts...> is the boost union-with-type. any is the boost smart-void*. optional is the boost there-or-not.
template<class...Ts>
boost::optional<boost::variant<Ts...>> to_variant( boost::any );
may be a useful function, that takes an any and tries to convert it to any of the Ts... types in the variant, and returns it if it succeeds (and returns an empty optional if not).
I need to create a template function like this:
template<typename T>
void foo(T a)
{
if (T is a subclass of class Bar)
do this
else
do something else
}
I can also imagine doing it using template specialization ... but I have never seen a template specialization for all subclasses of a superclass. I don't want to repeat specialization code for each subclass
You can do what you want but not how you are trying to do it! You can use std::enable_if together with std::is_base_of:
#include <iostream>
#include <utility>
#include <type_traits>
struct Bar { virtual ~Bar() {} };
struct Foo: Bar {};
struct Faz {};
template <typename T>
typename std::enable_if<std::is_base_of<Bar, T>::value>::type
foo(char const* type, T) {
std::cout << type << " is derived from Bar\n";
}
template <typename T>
typename std::enable_if<!std::is_base_of<Bar, T>::value>::type
foo(char const* type, T) {
std::cout << type << " is NOT derived from Bar\n";
}
int main()
{
foo("Foo", Foo());
foo("Faz", Faz());
}
Since this stuff gets more wide-spread, people have discussed having some sort of static if but so far it hasn't come into existance.
Both std::enable_if and std::is_base_of (declared in <type_traits>) are new in C++2011. If you need to compile with a C++2003 compiler you can either use their implementation from Boost (you need to change the namespace to boost and include "boost/utility.hpp" and "boost/enable_if.hpp" instead of the respective standard headers). Alternatively, if you can't use Boost, both of these class template can be implemented quite easily.
I would use std::is_base_of along with local class as :
#include <type_traits> //you must include this: C++11 solution!
template<typename T>
void foo(T a)
{
struct local
{
static void do_work(T & a, std::true_type const &)
{
//T is derived from Bar
}
static void do_work(T & a, std::false_type const &)
{
//T is not derived from Bar
}
};
local::do_work(a, std::is_base_of<Bar,T>());
}
Please note that std::is_base_of derives from std::integral_constant, so an object of former type can implicitly be converted into an object of latter type, which means std::is_base_of<Bar,T>() will convert into std::true_type or std::false_type depending upon the value of T. Also note that std::true_type and std::false_type are nothing but just typedefs, defined as:
typedef integral_constant<bool, true> true_type;
typedef integral_constant<bool, false> false_type;
I know this question has been answered but nobody mentioned that std::enable_if can be used as a second template parameter like this:
#include <type_traits>
class A {};
class B: public A {};
template<class T, typename std::enable_if<std::is_base_of<A, T>::value, int>::type = 0>
int foo(T t)
{
return 1;
}
I like this clear style:
void foo_detail(T a, const std::true_type&)
{
//do sub-class thing
}
void foo_detail(T a, const std::false_type&)
{
//do else
}
void foo(T a)
{
foo_detail(a, std::is_base_of<Bar, T>::value);
}
The problem is that indeed you cannot do something like this in C++17:
template<T>
struct convert_t {
static auto convert(T t) { /* err: no specialization */ }
}
template<T>
struct convert_t<T> {
// T should be subject to the constraint that it's a subclass of X
}
There are, however, two options to have the compiler select the correct method based on the class hierarchy involving tag dispatching and SFINAE.
Let's start with tag dispatching. The key here is that tag chosen is a pointer type. If B inherits from A, an overload with A* is selected for a value of type B*:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
struct type_to_convert {
type_to_convert(int i) : i(i) {};
type_to_convert(const type_to_convert&) = delete;
type_to_convert(type_to_convert&&) = delete;
int i;
};
struct X {
X(int i) : i(i) {};
X(const X &) = delete;
X(X &&) = delete;
public:
int i;
};
struct Y : X {
Y(int i) : X{i + 1} {}
};
struct A {};
template<typename>
static auto convert(const type_to_convert &t, int *) {
return t.i;
}
template<typename U>
static auto convert(const type_to_convert &t, X *) {
return U{t.i}; // will instantiate either X or a subtype
}
template<typename>
static auto convert(const type_to_convert &t, A *) {
return 42;
}
template<typename T /* requested type, though not necessarily gotten */>
static auto convert(const type_to_convert &t) {
return convert<T>(t, static_cast<T*>(nullptr));
}
int main() {
std::cout << convert<int>(type_to_convert{5}) << std::endl;
std::cout << convert<X>(type_to_convert{6}).i << std::endl;
std::cout << convert<Y>(type_to_convert{6}).i << std::endl;
std::cout << convert<A>(type_to_convert{-1}) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Another option is to use SFINAE with enable_if. The key here is that while the snippet in the beginning of the question is invalid, this specialization isn't:
template<T, typename = void>
struct convert_t {
static auto convert(T t) { /* err: no specialization */ }
}
template<T>
struct convert_t<T, void> {
}
So our specializations can keep a fully generic first parameter as long we make sure only one of them is valid at any given point. For this, we need to fashion mutually exclusive conditions. Example:
template<typename T /* requested type, though not necessarily gotten */,
typename = void>
struct convert_t {
static auto convert(const type_to_convert &t) {
static_assert(!sizeof(T), "no conversion");
}
};
template<>
struct convert_t<int> {
static auto convert(const type_to_convert &t) {
return t.i;
}
};
template<typename T>
struct convert_t<T, std::enable_if_t<std::is_base_of_v<X, T>>> {
static auto convert(const type_to_convert &t) {
return T{t.i}; // will instantiate either X or a subtype
}
};
template<typename T>
struct convert_t<T, std::enable_if_t<std::is_base_of_v<A, T>>> {
static auto convert(const type_to_convert &t) {
return 42; // will instantiate either X or a subtype
}
};
template<typename T>
auto convert(const type_to_convert& t) {
return convert_t<T>::convert(t);
}
Note: the specific example in the text of the question can be solved with constexpr, though:
template<typename T>
void foo(T a) {
if constexpr(std::is_base_of_v<Bar, T>)
// do this
else
// do something else
}
If you are allowed to use C++20 concepts, all this becomes almost trivial:
template<typename T> concept IsChildOfX = std::is_base_of<X, T>::value;
// then...
template<IsChildOfX X>
void somefunc( X& x ) {...}