Template pattern matching - c++

Consider this class template:
template <typename T1, typename T2, bool B>
class SomeClass { };
Now, I'd like to provide two implementations based on B==true and B==false. That is, I'd like to say something like:
template <ANYTHING, ANYTHING, true> class SomeClass {
// First implementation
};
template <ANYTHING, ANYTHING, false> class SomeClass {
// Second implementation
};
How can this be done in C++(11)?

With partial specialization:
// primary
template<typename X, typename Bool>
struct Foo;
template<typename X>
struct Foo<X, std::true_type> {};
template<typename X>
struct Foo<X, std::false_type> {};
// use
Foo<X, std::true_type> x;
I use a type-wrapper for bool, but you can also do that with
non-type template parameters:
// primary
template<typename, bool>
struct Foo;
template<typename X>
struct Foo<X, true> {};
template<typename X>
struct Foo<X, false> {};
// use
Foo<X, true> x;
Sometimes you can compute the value used for partial specialization
with meta-programming in the default argument:
// primary
template<typename X, typename is_integral_ = std::is_integral<X>::type>
struct Foo;
This makes the configuration variable overridable by user choice.
struct my {};
Foo<my, std::true_type> x;
To prevent that, dispatch through inheritance:
// primary, where Foo_impl is any of the above
template<typename X>
struct Foo : public Foo_impl<X> {};

It's called partial specialization:
template <typename T1, typename T2> class SomeClass<T1 ,T2, true> {
// First implementation
};
template <typename T1, typename T2> class SomeClass<T1, T2, false> {
// Second implementation
};
As the name indicates it is related to (full) specialization which looks like this:
template <> class SomeClass<int, char, false> {
// dedicated version for T1=int, T2=char, B=false
};
Note that if most of the implementation is the same, you can also write a single generic version, where only that code which depends on the bool argument is delegated to a trait class. In this case, the trait class would be fully-specialized on a single argument.

Related

Template struct that may or may not have a member

Is it possible to have a struct which may or may not have a member? Something like this:
template <typename T, typename A = some_type_with_size_0>
struct s {
T t;
A aux;
};
To be specific, if I asked for s<int, int> I would get a struct with two ints, but if I asked for s<int> I would get a struct with only an int.
In C++20, it will be possible to do what you're trying to do directly:
template <typename T, typename A = some_type_with_size_0>
struct s {
T t;
[[no_unique_address]] A aux;
};
See https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes/no_unique_address.
In C++17, there's no straightforward way to specify a member that conditionally disappears. You need to write a full-blown partial specialization, like so:
template <typename T, typename A = void>
struct s {
T t;
A aux;
};
template <typename T>
struct s<T, void> {
T t;
};
This unfortunately requires you to repeat yourself in typing out all the common members (in this case only t). To avoid this, we can stick the conditionally present members in a base class:
template <typename T, typename A = void>
struct s : optional_aux<A> {
T t;
};
template <typename A>
struct optional_aux {
A aux;
};
template <>
struct optional_aux<void> { };
In the case where A = void, this base class is empty, so the compiler has discretion to remove it entirely, making sizeof(s<T, void>) potentially equal to sizeof(T). The [[no_unique_address]] attribute basically makes empty base class optimization available for members as well.
You can use a variadic template:
template <typename...> struct Generic;
template <typename T1> struct Generic<T1> {
T1 field1;
};
template <typename T1, typename T2> struct Generic<T1, T2> {
T1 field1;
T2 field2;
};

Partial default specialization of multiple parameter template

Is there a way to extract a partial default specialization from the compiler?
Say that I have this two parameter template:
template<typename A, typename B>
struct X {
A a;
B b;
};
and I also have some code that makes use of a single parameter template, like this:
template<template<typename> class T, typename B>
struct make_T_of_B {
T<B> member;
};
I'd like to be able to say:
make_T_of_B<X<int>, double> dummy;
where X<int> is taken as a single parameter template. It would be equivalent to this template:
template<typename B>
struct Y {
int a;
B b;
};
which looks like how one would specialize X<int, B> without actually changing anything. It's in a way similar to a default specialization -- except that a default specialization doesn't produce another template but rather an actual type (in other words, it's always total).
I realize that I can cascade the template arguments
template<typename A>
struct Z1 {
// start from scratch
template<typename B>
struct Z2 {
A a;
B b;
};
// inherit from double template above
template<typename B>
struct X: ::X<A, B> {};
};
make_T_of_B<Z1<int>::Z2, double> dummy1;
make_T_of_B<Z1<int>::X, double> dummy2;
but I find that to be rather hard to read and not communicate my intentions clearly.
Thank you.
I misunderstood your question. All you want is a way to bind the first template parameter, which you can do easily like this:
template <typename T> using Foo = X<int, T>;
Now Foo<double> is the same as X<int, double>.
Without C++11-style aliases, you can achieve the same with a bit more boilerplate:
template <typename T> struct Foo
{
typedef X<int, T> type;
};
Now you use Foo<double>::type.
I'd use a trait:
template <typename> struct applicator;
template <template <typename> class Tmpl, typename T>
struct applicator<Tmpl<T>>
{
template <typename A>
using rebind = make_T_of_B<Tmpl, A>;
};
Now you can say:
applicator<X<int>>::rebind<double> dummy;
You can of course also move the second argument, A, into the main template:
template <typename, typename> bpplicator;
template <template <typename> class Tmpl, typename T, typename A>
struct bpplicator<Tmpl<T>, A>
{
using type = make_T_of_B<Tmpl, A>; // or "typedef make_T_of_B<Tmpl, A> type;"
};
bpplicator<X<int>, double>::type dummy;
This has the advantage that it works in C++03, too.

Doing a static_assert that a template type is another template

How do I static_assert like this? Maybe Boost supports it if not C++ or new features in C++11?
template<T>
struct foo {};
template<FooType>
struct bar {
static_assert(FooType is indeed foo<T> for some T,"failure"); //how?
};
You could do something along these lines. Given a trait that can verify whether a class is an instantiation of a class template:
#include <type_traits>
template<typename T, template<typename> class TT>
struct is_instantiation_of : std::false_type { };
template<typename T, template<typename> class TT>
struct is_instantiation_of<TT<T>, TT> : std::true_type { };
Use it as follows in your program:
template<typename T>
struct foo {};
template<typename FooType>
struct bar {
static_assert(is_instantiation_of<FooType, foo>::value, "failure");
};
int main()
{
bar<int> b; // ERROR!
bar<foo<int>> b; // OK!
}
If you want, you could generalize this to detect whether a class is an instance of a template with any number of (type) parameters, like so:
#include <type_traits>
template<template<typename...> class TT, typename T>
struct is_instantiation_of : std::false_type { };
template<template<typename...> class TT, typename... Ts>
struct is_instantiation_of<TT, TT<Ts...>> : std::true_type { };
template<typename FooType>
struct bar {
static_assert(is_instantiation_of<foo, FooType>::value, "failure");
};
You would then use it this way in your program:
template<typename FooType>
struct bar {
static_assert(is_instantiation_of<foo, FooType>::value, "failure");
};
int main()
{
bar<int> b; // ERROR!
bar<foo<int>> b; // OK!
}
Here is a live example.
Some small improvements over the other answers:
the name actually makes sense regarding the order of the parameters
handles const, volatile, and reference types properly via std::decay
implements C++14-style _v constexpr variable
accepts an arbitrary number of types to test against (tests for ALL)
I have intentionally not put the std::decay_t on the is_template_for_v because a type trait should work identically regardless of whether it is called with the _v suffix or not.
This does require C++17 for std::conjunction, but you can either remove the variadic feature or implement your own conjunction using c++11/14.
template<template<class...> class tmpl, typename T>
struct _is_template_for : public std::false_type {};
template<template<class...> class tmpl, class... Args>
struct _is_template_for<tmpl, tmpl<Args...>> : public std::true_type {};
template<template<class...> class tmpl, typename... Ts>
using is_template_for = std::conjunction<_is_template_for<tmpl, std::decay_t<Ts>>...>;
template<template<class...> class tmpl, typename... Ts>
constexpr bool is_template_for_v = is_template_for<tmpl, Ts...>::value;
Usage:
static_assert(is_template_for_v<std::vector, std::vector<int>>); // doesn't fire
As someone else wrote,
template<typename T, template<typename...> class TT>
struct is_specialization_of : std::false_type { };
template<template<typename...> class TT, typename... Ts>
struct is_specialization_of<TT<Ts...>, TT> : std::true_type { };
However, beware that this works only for template classes whose template parameters are all typenames! Presented with
typedef std::array<int, 42> MyArray;
static_assert(is_specialization_of<MyArray, std::array>::value, "");
it will simply fail to compile at all.
I believe C++11/C++14/C++17 currently have no way to deal with this limitation.

Is T an instance of a template in C++?

Suppose I'm in a template and I want to know if a type parameter T is an instantiation of a particular template, e.g., std::shared_ptr:
template<typename T>
void f(T&& param)
{
if (instantiation_of(T, std::shared_ptr)) ... // if T is an instantiation of
// std::shared_ptr...
...
}
More likely I'd want to do this kind of test as part of a std::enable_if test:
template<typename T>
std::enable_if<instantiation_of<T, std::shared_ptr>::type
f(T&& param)
{
...
}
// other overloads of f for when T is not an instantiation of std::shared_ptr
Is there a way to do this? Note that the solution needs to work with all possible types and templates, including those in the standard library and in other libraries I cannot modify. My use of std::shared_ptr above is just an example of what I might want to do.
If this is possible, how would I write the test myself, i.e., implement instantiation_of?
Why use enable_if when simple overloading suffices?
template<typename T>
void f(std::shared_ptr<T> param)
{
// ...
}
If you really do need such a trait, I think this should get you started (only roughly tested with VC++ 2010):
#include <type_traits>
template<typename>
struct template_arg;
template<template<typename> class T, typename U>
struct template_arg<T<U>>
{
typedef U type;
};
template<typename T>
struct is_template
{
static T* make();
template<typename U>
static std::true_type check(U*, typename template_arg<U>::type* = nullptr);
static std::false_type check(...);
static bool const value =
std::is_same<std::true_type, decltype(check(make()))>::value;
};
template<
typename T,
template<typename> class,
bool Enable = is_template<T>::value
>
struct specialization_of : std::false_type
{ };
template<typename T, template<typename> class U>
struct specialization_of<T, U, true> :
std::is_same<T, U<typename template_arg<T>::type>>
{ };
A partial spec should be able to do it.
template <template <typename...> class X, typename T>
struct instantiation_of : std::false_type {};
template <template <typename...> class X, typename... Y>
struct instantiation_of<X, X<Y...>> : std::true_type {};
http://ideone.com/4n346
I actually had to look up the template template syntax, because I've basically never had cause to use it before.
Not sure how this interacts with templates like std::vector with additional defaulted arguments.
Best way to do it when dealing with a T&& is to make sure you remove_reference before doing the check, because the underlying type T can be a reference or a value type, and template partial specialization has to be exact to work. Combined with an answer above the code to do it could be:
template <
typename T,
template <typename...> class Templated
> struct has_template_type_impl : std::false_type {};
template <
template <typename...> class T,
typename... Ts
> struct has_template_type_impl<T<Ts...>, T> : std::true_type {};
template <
typename T,
template <typename...> class Templated
> using has_template_type = has_template_type_impl<
typename std::remove_reference<T>::type,
Templated
>;
And then you just enable_if your way to victory:
template <typename T>
typename std::enable_if<has_template_type<T, std::shared_ptr>::value>::type
f(T&& param)
{
// ...
}

Conditional compile-time inclusion/exclusion of code based on template argument(s)?

Consider the following class, with the inner struct Y being used as a type, eg. in templates, later on:
template<int I>
class X{
template<class T1>
struct Y{};
template<class T1, class T2>
struct Y{};
};
Now, this example will obviously not compile, with the error that the second X<I>::Y has already been defined or that it has too many template parameters.
I'd like to resolve that without (extra) partial specialization, since the int I parameter isn't the only one and the position of it can differ in different partial specializations (my actual struct looks more like this, the above is just for simplicity of the question), so I'd like one class fits every I solution.
My first thought was obviously enable_if, but that seems to fail on me, eg. I still get the same errors:
// assuming C++11 support, else use boost
#include <type_traits>
template<int I>
class X{
template<class T1, class = std::enable_if<I==1>::type>
struct Y{};
template<class T1, class T2, class = std::enable_if<I==2>::type>
struct Y{};
};
So, since enable_if fails, I hope there is another way to achieve the following compile time check:
template<int I>
class X{
__include_if(I == 1){
template<class T1>
struct Y{};
}
__include_if(I == 2){
template<class T1, class T2>
struct Y{};
}
};
It would just be to save me a lot of code duplication, but I'd be really happy if it was somehow possible.
Edit: Sadly, I can't use the obvious: variadic templates, as I'm using Visual Studio 2010, so only the C++0x stuff that is supported there I can use. :/
There are two problems here:
enable_if works with partial specialization, not primary templates.
The number of externally-visible arguments is determined by the primary template, of which there may be only one.
Answer 1.
As you suggested in chat, a linked list of templates can emulate the variadic parameter pack.
template<int I>
class X{
template<class list, class = void>
struct Y;
template<class list>
struct Y< list, typename std::enable_if<I==1>::type > {
typedef typename list::type t1;
};
template<class list>
struct Y< list, typename std::enable_if<I==2>::type > {
typedef typename list::type t1;
typedef typename list::next::type t2;
};
};
If you end up with next::next::next garbage, it's easy to write a metafunction, or use Boost MPL.
Answer 2.
The different-arity templates can be named similarly but still stay distinct if they are nested inside the SFINAE-controlled type.
template<int I>
class X{
template<typename = void, typename = void>
struct Z;
template<typename v>
struct Z< v, typename std::enable_if<I==1>::type > {
template<class T1>
struct Y{};
};
template<typename v>
struct Z< v, typename std::enable_if<I==2>::type > {
template<class T1, class T2>
struct Y{};
};
};
X<1>::Z<>::Y< int > a;
X<2>::Z<>::Y< char, double > b;
Here you go:
http://ideone.com/AdEfl
And the code:
#include <iostream>
template <int I>
struct Traits
{
struct inner{};
};
template <>
struct Traits<1>
{
struct inner{
template<class T1>
struct impl{
impl() { std::cout << "impl<T1>" << std::endl; }
};
};
};
template <>
struct Traits<2>
{
struct inner{
template<class T1, class T2>
struct impl{
impl() { std::cout << "impl<T1, T2>" << std::endl; }
};
};
};
template<class T>
struct Test{};
template<class T, class K>
struct Foo{};
template<int I>
struct arg{};
template<
template<class, class> class T,
class P1, int I
>
struct Test< T<P1, arg<I> > >{
typedef typename Traits<I>::inner inner;
};
template<
template<class, class> class T,
class P2, int I
>
struct Test< T<arg<I>, P2 > >{
typedef typename Traits<I>::inner inner;
};
// and a bunch of other partial specializations
int main(){
typename Test<Foo<int, arg<1> > >::inner::impl<int> b;
typename Test<Foo<int, arg<2> > >::inner::impl<int, double> c;
}
Explanation: Basically it's an extension of the idea of partial specialization, however the difference is that rather than specializing within Test, delegate to a specific class that can be specialized on I alone. That way you only need to define versions of inner for each I once. Then multiple specializations of Test can re-use. The inner holder is used to make the typedef in the Test class easier to handle.
EDIT: here is a test case that shows what happens if you pass in the wrong number of template arguments: http://ideone.com/QzgNP
Can you try below (it is not partial specialization):
template<int I>
class X
{
};
template<>
class X<1>
{
template<class T1>
struct Y{};
};
template<>
class X<2>
{
template<class T1, class T2>
struct Y{};
};
I doubt if the answer is that simple !!
Edit (Mocking Partial specialization):
#Xeo, I was able to compile following code and seems to be fullfilling.
template<int I>
struct X
{
struct Unused {}; // this mocking structure will never be used
template<class T1, class T2 = Unused> // if 2 params passed-->ok; else default='Unused'
struct Y{};
template<class T1>
struct Y<T1, Unused>{}; // This is specialization of above, define it your way
};
int main()
{
X<1>::Y<int> o1; // Y<T1 = int, T2 = Unused> called
X<2>::Y<int, float> o2; // Y<T1 = int, T2 = float> called
}
Here, however you can use X<1>, X<2> interchangeably. But in the broader example you mentioned, that is irrelevant. Still if you need, you can put checks for I = 1 and I = 2.
How about this approach - http://sergey-miryanov.blogspot.com/2009/03/template-class-overriding.html? (sorry for russian)
You can use a meta function (here: inlined boost::mpl::if_c, but could be arbitrarily complex) to select the one you want. You need some scaffolding to be able to use constructors, though:
template <int I>
class X {
template <typename T1>
class YforIeq1 { /* meat of the class */ };
template <typename T1, typename T2>
class YforIeq2 { /* meat of the class */ };
public:
template <typename T1, typename T2=boost::none_t/*e.g.*/>
struct Y : boost::mpl::if_c<I==1,YforIeq1<T1>,YforIeq2<T1,T2> >::type {
typedef typename mpl::if_c<I==1,YforIeq1<T1>,YforIeq2<T1,T2> >::type YBase;
/* ctor forwarding: C++0x */
using YBase::YBase;
/* ctor forwarding: C++03 (runs into perfect fwd'ing problem)*/
Y() : YBase() {}
template <typename A1>
Y(const A1&a1) : YBase(a1) {}
template <typename A1, typename A2>
Y(const A1&a1, const A2&a2) : YBase(a1,a2) {}
// ...
};
};
If there's a problem with both YforIeqN being instantiated for each X, then you can try wrapping them as a nullary meta function (something along the way mpl::apply does) and use mpl::eval_if_c.