Partial application with a C++ lambda? - c++

EDIT: I use curry below, but have been informed this is instead partial application.
I've been trying to figure out how one would write a curry function in C++, and i actually figured it out!
#include <stdio.h>
#include <functional>
template< class Ret, class Arg1, class ...Args >
auto curry( Ret f(Arg1,Args...), Arg1 arg )
-> std::function< Ret(Args...) >
{
return [=]( Args ...args ) { return f( arg, args... ); };
}
And i wrote a version for lambdas, too.
template< class Ret, class Arg1, class ...Args >
auto curry( const std::function<Ret(Arg1,Args...)>& f, Arg1 arg )
-> std::function< Ret(Args...) >
{
return [=]( Args ...args ) { return f( arg, args... ); };
}
The tests:
int f( int x, int y )
{
return x + y;
}
int main()
{
auto f5 = curry( f, 5 );
auto g2 = curry( std::function<int(int,int)>([](int x, int y){ return x*y; }), 2 );
printf("%d\n",f5(3));
printf("%d\n",g2(3));
}
Yuck! The line initializing g2 is so large that i might as well have curried it manually.
auto g2 = [](int y){ return 2*y; };
Much shorter. But since the intent is to have a really generic and convenient curry function, could i either (1) write a better function or (2) somehow my lambda to implicitly construct an std::function? I fear the current version violates the rule of least surprise when f is not a free function. Especially annoying is how no make_function or similar-type function that i know of seems to exist. Really, my ideal solution would just be a call to std::bind, but i'm not sure how to use it with variadic templates.
PS: No boost, please, but i'll settle if nothing else.
EDIT: I already know about std::bind. I wouldn't be writing this function if std::bind did exactly what i wanted with the best syntax. This should be more of a special case where it only binds the first element.
As i said, my ideal solution should use bind, but if i wanted to use that, i'd use that.

Your curry function is just a scaled down inefficient subcase of std::bind (std::bind1st and bind2nd should not be used anymore now that we have std::result_of)
Your two lines read in fact
auto f5 = std::bind(f, 5, _1);
auto g2 = std::bind(std::multiplies<int>(), 2, _1);
after having used namespace std::placeholders. This carefully avoids the boxing into std::function and allows the compiler to inline more easily the result at the call site.
For functions of two arguments, hacking something like
auto bind1st(F&& f, T&& t)
-> decltype(std::bind(std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<T>(t), _1))
{
return std::bind(std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<T>(t), _1)
}
may work, but it is difficult to generalize to the variadic case (for which you'd end up rewriting a lot of the logic in std::bind).
Also currying is not partial application. Currying has "signature"
((a, b) -> c) -> (a -> b -> c)
ie. it is the action to transform a function taking two arguments into a function returning a function. It has an inverse uncurry performing the reverse operation (for mathematicians: curry and uncurry are isomorphisms, and define an adjunction). This inverse is very cumbersome to write in C++ (hint: use std::result_of).

This is a way to have currying in C++ and may or may not be relevant after the recent edits to the OP.
Due to overloading it is very problematic to inspect a functor and detect its arity. What is possible however is that given a functor f and an argument a, we can check if f(a) is a valid expression. If it isn't, we can store a and given a following argument b we can check if f(a, b) is a valid expression, and so on. To wit:
#include <utility>
#include <tuple>
/* Two SFINAE utilities */
template<typename>
struct void_ { using type = void; };
template<typename T>
using Void = typename void_<T>::type;
// std::result_of doesn't play well with SFINAE so we deliberately avoid it
// and roll our own
// For the sake of simplicity this result_of does not compute the same type
// as std::result_of (e.g. pointer to members)
template<typename Sig, typename Sfinae = void>
struct result_of {};
template<typename Functor, typename... Args>
struct result_of<
Functor(Args...)
, Void<decltype( std::declval<Functor>()(std::declval<Args>()...) )>
> {
using type = decltype( std::declval<Functor>()(std::declval<Args>()...) );
};
template<typename Functor, typename... Args>
using ResultOf = typename result_of<Sig>::type;
template<typename Functor, typename... Args>
class curry_type {
using tuple_type = std::tuple<Args...>;
public:
curry_type(Functor functor, tuple_type args)
: functor(std::forward<Functor>(functor))
, args(std::move(args))
{}
// Same policy as the wrappers from std::bind & others:
// the functor inherits the cv-qualifiers from the wrapper
// you might want to improve on that and inherit ref-qualifiers, too
template<typename Arg>
ResultOf<Functor&(Args..., Arg)>
operator()(Arg&& arg)
{
return invoke(functor, std::tuple_cat(std::move(args), std::forward_as_tuple(std::forward<Arg>(arg))));
}
// Implementation omitted for brevity -- same as above in any case
template<typename Arg>
ResultOf<Functor const&(Args..., Arg)>
operator()(Arg&& arg) const;
// Additional cv-qualified overloads omitted for brevity
// Fallback: keep calm and curry on
// the last ellipsis (...) means that this is a C-style vararg function
// this is a trick to make this overload (and others like it) least
// preferred when it comes to overload resolution
// the Rest pack is here to make for better diagnostics if a user erroenously
// attempts e.g. curry(f)(2, 3) instead of perhaps curry(f)(2)(3)
// note that it is possible to provide the same functionality without this hack
// (which I have no idea is actually permitted, all things considered)
// but requires further facilities (e.g. an is_callable trait)
template<typename Arg, typename... Rest>
curry_type<Functor, Args..., Arg>
operator()(Arg&& arg, Rest const&..., ...)
{
static_assert( sizeof...(Rest) == 0
, "Wrong usage: only pass up to one argument to a curried functor" );
return { std::forward<Functor>(functor), std::tuple_cat(std::move(args), std::forward_as_tuple(std::forward<Arg>(arg))) };
}
// Again, additional overloads omitted
// This is actually not part of the currying functionality
// but is here so that curry(f)() is equivalent of f() iff
// f has a nullary overload
template<typename F = Functor>
ResultOf<F&(Args...)>
operator()()
{
// This check if for sanity -- if I got it right no user can trigger it
// It *is* possible to emit a nice warning if a user attempts
// e.g. curry(f)(4)() but requires further overloads and SFINAE --
// left as an exercise to the reader
static_assert( sizeof...(Args) == 0, "How did you do that?" );
return invoke(functor, std::move(args));
}
// Additional cv-qualified overloads for the nullary case omitted for brevity
private:
Functor functor;
mutable tuple_type args;
template<typename F, typename Tuple, int... Indices>
ResultOf<F(typename std::tuple_element<Indices, Tuple>::type...)>
static invoke(F&& f, Tuple&& tuple, indices<Indices...>)
{
using std::get;
return std::forward<F>(f)(get<Indices>(std::forward<Tuple>(tuple))...);
}
template<typename F, typename Tuple>
static auto invoke(F&& f, Tuple&& tuple)
-> decltype( invoke(std::declval<F>(), std::declval<Tuple>(), indices_for<Tuple>()) )
{
return invoke(std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<Tuple>(tuple), indices_for<Tuple>());
}
};
template<typename Functor>
curry_type<Functor> curry(Functor&& functor)
{ return { std::forward<Functor>(functor), {} }; }
The above code compiles using a snapshot of GCC 4.8 (barring copy-and-paste errors), provided that there is an indices type and an indices_for utility. This question and its answer demonstrates the need and implementation of such things, where seq plays the role of indices and gens can be used to implement a (more convenient) indices_for.
Great care is taken in the above when it comes to value category and lifetime of (possible) temporaries. curry (and its accompanying type, which is an implementation detail) is designed to be as lightweight as possible while still making it very, very safe to use. In particular, usage such as:
foo a;
bar b;
auto f = [](foo a, bar b, baz c, int) { return quux(a, b, c); };
auto curried = curry(f);
auto pass = curried(a);
auto some = pass(b);
auto parameters = some(baz {});
auto result = parameters(0);
does not copy f, a or b; nor does it result in dangling references to temporaries. This all still holds true even if auto is substituted with auto&& (assuming quux is sane, but that's beyond the control of curry). It's still possible to come up with different policies in that regard (e.g. systematically decaying).
Note that parameters (but not the functor) are passed with the same value category in the final call as when they're passed to the curried wrapper. Hence in
auto functor = curry([](foo f, int) {});
auto curried = functor(foo {});
auto r0 = curried(0);
auto r1 = curried(1);
this means that a moved-from foo is passed to the underlying functor when computing r1.

With some C++14 features, partial application that works on lambda's can be implemented in a pretty concise way.
template<typename _function, typename _val>
auto partial( _function foo, _val v )
{
return
[foo, v](auto... rest)
{
return foo(v, rest...);
};
}
template< typename _function, typename _val1, typename... _valrest >
auto partial( _function foo, _val1 val, _valrest... valr )
{
return
[foo,val,valr...](auto... frest)
{
return partial(partial(foo, val), valr...)(frest...);
};
}
// partial application on lambda
int p1 = partial([](int i, int j){ return i-j; }, 6)(2);
int p2 = partial([](int i, int j){ return i-j; }, 6, 2)();

A lot of the examples people provided and that i saw elsewhere used helper classes to do whatever they did. I realized this becomes trivial to write when you do that!
#include <utility> // for declval
#include <array>
#include <cstdio>
using namespace std;
template< class F, class Arg >
struct PartialApplication
{
F f;
Arg arg;
constexpr PartialApplication( F&& f, Arg&& arg )
: f(forward<F>(f)), arg(forward<Arg>(arg))
{
}
/*
* The return type of F only gets deduced based on the number of arguments
* supplied. PartialApplication otherwise has no idea whether f takes 1 or 10 args.
*/
template< class ... Args >
constexpr auto operator() ( Args&& ...args )
-> decltype( f(arg,declval<Args>()...) )
{
return f( arg, forward<Args>(args)... );
}
};
template< class F, class A >
constexpr PartialApplication<F,A> partial( F&& f, A&& a )
{
return PartialApplication<F,A>( forward<F>(f), forward<A>(a) );
}
/* Recursively apply for multiple arguments. */
template< class F, class A, class B >
constexpr auto partial( F&& f, A&& a, B&& b )
-> decltype( partial(partial(declval<F>(),declval<A>()),
declval<B>()) )
{
return partial( partial(forward<F>(f),forward<A>(a)), forward<B>(b) );
}
/* Allow n-ary application. */
template< class F, class A, class B, class ...C >
constexpr auto partial( F&& f, A&& a, B&& b, C&& ...c )
-> decltype( partial(partial(declval<F>(),declval<A>()),
declval<B>(),declval<C>()...) )
{
return partial( partial(forward<F>(f),forward<A>(a)),
forward<B>(b), forward<C>(c)... );
}
int times(int x,int y) { return x*y; }
int main()
{
printf( "5 * 2 = %d\n", partial(times,5)(2) );
printf( "5 * 2 = %d\n", partial(times,5,2)() );
}

Related

decltype for the return type of recursive variadic function template

Given the following code(taken from here):
#include <cstddef>
#include <type_traits>
#include <tuple>
#include <iostream>
#include <utility>
#include <functional>
template<typename ... Fs>
struct compose_impl
{
compose_impl(Fs&& ... fs) : functionTuple(std::forward_as_tuple(fs ...)) {}
template<size_t N, typename ... Ts>
auto apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, N>, Ts&& ... ts) const
{
return apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, N - 1>(), std::get<N> (functionTuple)(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...));
}
template<typename ... Ts>
auto apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, 0>, Ts&& ... ts) const
{
return std::get<0>(functionTuple)(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...);
}
template<typename ... Ts>
auto operator()(Ts&& ... ts) const
{
return apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, sizeof ... (Fs) - 1>(), std::forward<Ts>(ts)...);
}
std::tuple<Fs ...> functionTuple;
};
template<typename ... Fs>
auto compose(Fs&& ... fs)
{
return compose_impl<Fs ...>(std::forward<Fs>(fs) ...);
}
int main ()
{
auto f1 = [](std::pair<double,double> p) {return p.first + p.second; };
auto f2 = [](double x) {return std::make_pair(x, x + 1.0); };
auto f3 = [](double x, double y) {return x*y; };
auto g = compose(f1, f2, f3);
std::cout << g(2.0, 3.0) << std::endl; //prints '13', evaluated as (2*3) + ((2*3)+1)
return 0;
}
The code above works in C++14. I'm having some trouble making it work for C++11. I tried to properly provide the return types for the function templates involved but without much success e.g.:
template<typename... Fs>
struct compose_impl
{
compose_impl(Fs&&... fs) : func_tup(std::forward_as_tuple(fs...)) {}
template<size_t N, typename... Ts>
auto apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, N>, Ts&&... ts) const -> decltype(std::declval<typename std::tuple_element<N, std::tuple<Fs...>>::type>()(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...))
// -- option 2. decltype(apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, N - 1>(), std::declval<typename std::tuple_element<N, std::tuple<Fs...>>::type>()(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...)))
{
return apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, N - 1>(), std::get<N>(func_tup)(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...));
}
using func_type = typename std::tuple_element<0, std::tuple<Fs...>>::type;
template<typename... Ts>
auto apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, 0>, Ts&&... ts) const -> decltype(std::declval<func_type>()(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...))
{
return std::get<0>(func_tup)(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...);
}
template<typename... Ts>
auto operator()(Ts&&... ts) const -> decltype(std::declval<func_type>()(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...))
// -- option 2. decltype(apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, sizeof...(Fs) - 1>(), std::forward<Ts>(ts)...))
{
return apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, sizeof...(Fs) - 1>(), std::forward<Ts>(ts)...);
}
std::tuple<Fs...> func_tup;
};
template<typename... Fs>
auto compose(Fs&&... fs) -> decltype(compose_impl<Fs...>(std::forward<Fs>(fs)...))
{
return compose_impl<Fs...>(std::forward<Fs>(fs)...);
}
For the above clang(3.5.0) gives me the following error:
func_compose.cpp:79:18: error: no matching function for call to object of type 'compose_impl<(lambda at func_compose.cpp:65:15) &, (lambda at func_compose.cpp:67:15) &,
(lambda at func_compose.cpp:68:15) &>'
std::cout << g(2.0, 3.0) << std::endl; //prints '13', evaluated as (2*3) + ((2*3)+1)
^
func_compose.cpp:31:10: note: candidate template ignored: substitution failure [with Ts = <double, double>]: no matching function for call to object of type
'(lambda at func_compose.cpp:65:15)'
auto operator()(Ts&&... ts) /*const*/ -> decltype(std::declval<func_type>()(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...))
^ ~~~
1 error generated.
If I try "option 2." I get pretty much the same error.
Apart from the fact that it looks very verbose I also cannot seem to get it right. Could anyone provide some insight in what am I doing wrong?
Is there any simpler way to provide the return types?
The error message for your first option is due to the fact that in
std::declval<func_type>()(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...)
you're trying to call the f1 functor with two arguments of type double (the ones passed to operator()), but it takes a std::pair (func_type refers to the type of the first functor in the tuple).
Regarding option 2, the reason it doesn't compile is that the trailing return type is part of the function declarator and the function is not considered declared until the end of the declarator has been seen, so you can't use decltype(apply(...)) in the trailing return type of the first declaration of apply.
I'm sure you're now very happy to know why your code doesn't compile, but I guess you'd be even happier if you had a working solution.
I think there's an essential fact that needs to be clarified first: all specializations of the apply and operator() templates in compose_impl have the same return type - the return type of the first functor, f1 in this case.
There are several ways to get that type, but a quick hack is the following:
#include <cstddef>
#include <type_traits>
#include <tuple>
#include <iostream>
#include <utility>
#include <functional>
template<typename> struct ret_hlp;
template<typename F, typename R, typename... Args> struct ret_hlp<R (F::*)(Args...) const>
{
using type = R;
};
template<typename F, typename R, typename... Args> struct ret_hlp<R (F::*)(Args...)>
{
using type = R;
};
template<typename ... Fs>
struct compose_impl
{
compose_impl(Fs&& ... fs) : functionTuple(std::forward_as_tuple(fs ...)) {}
using f1_type = typename std::remove_reference<typename std::tuple_element<0, std::tuple<Fs...>>::type>::type;
using ret_type = typename ret_hlp<decltype(&f1_type::operator())>::type;
template<size_t N, typename ... Ts>
ret_type apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, N>, Ts&& ... ts) const
{
return apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, N - 1>(), std::get<N> (functionTuple)(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...));
}
template<typename ... Ts>
ret_type apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, 0>, Ts&& ... ts) const
{
return std::get<0>(functionTuple)(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...);
}
template<typename ... Ts>
ret_type operator()(Ts&& ... ts) const
{
return apply(std::integral_constant<size_t, sizeof ... (Fs) - 1>(), std::forward<Ts>(ts)...);
}
std::tuple<Fs ...> functionTuple;
};
template<typename ... Fs>
compose_impl<Fs ...> compose(Fs&& ... fs)
{
return compose_impl<Fs ...>(std::forward<Fs>(fs) ...);
}
int main ()
{
auto f1 = [](std::pair<double,double> p) {return p.first + p.second; };
auto f2 = [](double x) {return std::make_pair(x, x + 1.0); };
auto f3 = [](double x, double y) {return x*y; };
auto g = compose(f1, f2, f3);
std::cout << g(2.0, 3.0) << std::endl; //prints '13', evaluated as (2*3) + ((2*3)+1)
return 0;
}
Notes:
It compiles and works on GCC 4.9.1 and Clang 3.5.0 in C++11 mode, and on Visual C++ 2013.
As written, ret_hlp only handles function object types that declare their operator() similarly to lambda closure types, but it can be easily extended to pretty much anything else, including plain function types.
I tried to change the original code as little as possible; I think there's one important bit that needs to be mentioned regarding that code: if compose is given lvalue arguments (as in this example), functionTuple inside compose_impl will store references to those arguments. This means the original functors need to be available for as long as the composite functor is used, otherwise you'll have dangling references.
EDIT: Here's more info on the last note, as requested in the comment:
That behaviour is due to the way forwarding references work - the Fs&& ... function parameters of compose. If you have a function parameter of the form F&& for which template argument deduction is being done (as it is here), and an argument of type A is given for that parameter, then:
if the argument expression is an rvalue, F is deduced as A, and, when substituted back into the function parameter, it gives A&& (for example, this would happen if you passed a lambda expression directly as the argument to compose);
if the argument expression is an lvalue, F is deduced as A&, and, when substituted back into the function parameter, it gives A& &&, which yields A& according to the reference collapsing rules (this is what happens in the current example, as f1 and the others are lvalues).
So, in the current example, compose_impl will be instantiated using the deduced template arguments as something like (using invented names for lambda closure types)
compose_impl<lambda_1_type&, lambda_2_type&, lambda_3_type&>
which in turn will make functionTuple have the type
std::tuple<lambda_1_type&, lambda_2_type&, lambda_3_type&>
If you'd pass the lambda expressions directly as arguments to compose, then, according to the above, functionTuple will have the type
std::tuple<lambda_1_type, lambda_2_type, lambda_3_type>
So, only in the latter case will the tuple store copies of the function objects, making the composed function object type self-contained.
Now, it's not a question of whether this is good or bad; it's rather a question of what you want.
If you want the composed object to always be self-contained (store copies of the functors), then you need to get rid of those references. One way to do it here is to use std::decay, as it does more than remove references - it also handles function-to-pointer conversions, which comes in handy if you want to extend compose_impl to be able to also handle plain functions.
The easiest way is to change the declaration of functionTuple, as it's the only place where you care about references in the current implementation:
std::tuple<typename std::decay<Fs>::type ...> functionTuple;
The result is that the function objects will always be copied or moved inside the tuple, so the resulting composed function object can be used even after the original components have been destructed.
Wow, this got long; maybe you shouldn't have said 'elaborate' :-).
EDIT 2 for the second comment from the OP: Yes, the code as it is, without the std::decay (but extended to properly determine ret_type for plain function arguments, as you said) will handle plain functions, but be careful:
int f(int) { return 7; }
int main()
{
auto c1 = compose(&f, &f); //Stores pointers to function f.
auto c2 = compose(f, f); //Stores references to function f.
auto pf = f; //pf has type int(*)(int), but is an lvalue, as opposed to &f, which is an rvalue.
auto c3 = compose(pf, pf); //Stores references to pointer pf.
std::cout << std::is_same<decltype(c1.functionTuple), std::tuple<int(*)(int), int(*)(int)>>::value << '\n';
std::cout << std::is_same<decltype(c2.functionTuple), std::tuple<int(&)(int), int(&)(int)>>::value << '\n';
std::cout << std::is_same<decltype(c3.functionTuple), std::tuple<int(*&)(int), int(*&)(int)>>::value << '\n';
}
The behaviour of c3 is probably not what you want or what one would expect. Not to mention all these variants will likely confuse your code for determining ret_type.
With the std::decay in place, all three variants store pointers to function f.

Function wrapper that works for all kinds of functors without casting

I'd like to create a function that takes a weak pointer and any kind of functor (lambda, std::function, whatever) and returns a new functor that only executes the original functor when the pointer was not removed in the meantime (so let's assume there is a WeakPointer type with such semantics). This should all work for any functor without having to specify explicitly the functor signature through template parameters or a cast.
EDIT:
Some commenters have pointed out that std::function - which I used in my approach - might not be needed at all and neither might the lambda (though in my original question I also forgot to mention that I need to capture the weak pointer parameter), so any alternative solution that solves the general problem is of course is also highly appreciated, maybe I didn't think enough outside the box and was to focused on using a lambda + std::function. In any case, here goes what I tried so far:
template<typename... ArgumentTypes>
inline std::function<void(ArgumentTypes...)> wrap(WeakPointer pWeakPointer, const std::function<void(ArgumentTypes...)>&& fun)
{
return [=] (ArgumentTypes... args)
{
if(pWeakPointer)
{
fun(args...);
}
};
}
This works well without having to explicitly specify the argument types if I pass an std::function, but fails if I pass a lambda expression. I guess this because the std::function constructor ambiguity as asked in this question. In any case, I tried the following helper to be able to capture any kind of function:
template<typename F, typename... ArgumentTypes>
inline function<void(ArgumentTypes...)> wrap(WeakPointer pWeakPointer, const F&& fun)
{
return wrap(pWeakPointer, std::function<void(ArgumentTypes...)>(fun));
}
This now works for lambdas that don't have parameters but fails for other ones, since it always instantiates ArgumentTypes... with an empty set.
I can think of two solution to the problem, but didn't manage to implement either of them:
Make sure that the correct std::function (or another Functor helper type) is created for a lambda, i.e. that a lambda with signature R(T1) results in a std::function(R(T1)) so that the ArgumentTypes... will be correctly deduced
Do not put the ArgumentTypes... as a template parameter instead have some other way (boost?) to get the argument pack from the lambda/functor, so I could do something like this:
-
template<typename F>
inline auto wrap(WeakPointer pWeakPointer, const F&& fun) -> std::function<void(arg_pack_from_functor(fun))>
{
return wrap(pWeakPointer, std::function<void(arg_pack_from_functor(fun))(fun));
}
You don't have to use a lambda.
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename F>
struct Wrapper {
F f;
template <typename... T>
auto operator()(T&&... args) -> typename std::result_of<F(T...)>::type {
std::cout << "calling f with " << sizeof...(args) << " arguments.\n";
return f(std::forward<T>(args)...);
}
};
template <typename F>
Wrapper<F> wrap(F&& f) {
return {std::forward<F>(f)};
}
int main() {
auto f = wrap([](int x, int y) { return x + y; });
std::cout << f(2, 3) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Assuming the weak pointer takes the place of the first argument, here's how I would do it with a generic lambda (with move captures) and if C++ would allow me to return such a lambda:
template<typename Functor, typename Arg, typename... Args>
auto wrap(Functor&& functor, Arg&& arg)
{
return [functor = std::forward<Functor>(functor)
, arg = std::forward<Arg>(arg)]<typename... Rest>(Rest&&... rest)
{
if(auto e = arg.lock()) {
return functor(*e, std::forward<Rest>(rest)...);
} else {
// Let's handwave this for the time being
}
};
}
It is possible to translate this hypothetical code into actual C++11 code if we manually 'unroll' the generic lambda into a polymorphic functor:
template<typename F, typename Pointer>
struct wrap_type {
F f;
Pointer pointer;
template<typename... Rest>
auto operator()(Rest&&... rest)
-> decltype( f(*pointer.lock(), std::forward<Rest>(rest)...) )
{
if(auto p = lock()) {
return f(*p, std::forward<Rest>(rest)...);
} else {
// Handle
}
}
};
template<typename F, typename Pointer>
wrap_type<typename std::decay<F>::type, typename std::decay<Pointer>::type>
wrap(F&& f, Pointer&& pointer)
{ return { std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<Pointer>(pointer) }; }
There are two straightforward options for handling the case where the pointer has expired: either propagate an exception, or return an out-of-band value. In the latter case the return type would become e.g. optional<decltype( f(*pointer.lock(), std::forward<Rest>(rest)...) )> and // Handle would become return {};.
Example code to see everything in action.
[ Exercise for the ambitious: improve the code so that it's possible to use auto g = wrap(f, w, 4); auto r = g();. Then, if it's not already the case, improve it further so that auto g = wrap(f, w1, 4, w5); is also possible and 'does the right thing'. ]

How to implement an easy_bind() that automagically inserts implied placeholders?

I recently found this nifty snippet on the web - it allows you to bind without having to pass in explicit placeholders:
template <typename ReturnType, typename... Args>
std::function<ReturnType(Args...)>
easy_bind(ReturnType(*MemPtr)(Args...))
{
return [=]( Args... args ) -> ReturnType { return (*MemPtr)( args... ); };
}
This version works great with no args:
auto f1 = easy_bind( (std::string(*)(A&,A&))&Worker::MyFn );
later invoked with:
std::string s = f1( *p_a1, *p_a2 );
Question
Is it possible to modify the code to work with anything up to n args, filling 2-n (in this case) with placeholders? For example, this one should have one placeholder:
auto f2 = easy_bind( (std::string(*)(A&,A&))&Worker::MyFn, *p_a1 );
later invoked with:
std::string s = f2( *p_a2 );
Bonus
Ultimately, it would nice to have something like this (which inserts no placeholders since it will use up the last one), but I don't think it's workable with this implementation (can't pattern-match the signature, I think):
auto f3 = easy_bind( f2, *p_a2 );
later invoked with:
std::string s = f3();
The bottom line is, it would be nice to have a version of bind where I don't need to put in placeholders - it would be quite useful in generic TMP code.
With the indices trick and the ability to tell std::bind about your own placeholder types, here's what I came up with:
#include <functional>
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
template<int I> struct placeholder{};
namespace std{
template<int I>
struct is_placeholder< ::placeholder<I>> : std::integral_constant<int, I>{};
} // std::
namespace detail{
template<std::size_t... Is, class F, class... Args>
auto easy_bind(indices<Is...>, F const& f, Args&&... args)
-> decltype(std::bind(f, std::forward<Args>(args)..., placeholder<Is + 1>{}...))
{
return std::bind(f, std::forward<Args>(args)..., placeholder<Is + 1>{}...);
}
} // detail::
template<class R, class... FArgs, class... Args>
auto easy_bind(std::function<R(FArgs...)> const& f, Args&&... args)
-> decltype(detail::easy_bind(build_indices<sizeof...(FArgs) - sizeof...(Args)>{}, f, std::forward<Args>(args)...))
{
return detail::easy_bind(build_indices<sizeof...(FArgs) - sizeof...(Args)>{}, f, std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
Live example.
Take note that I require the function argument to easy_bind to be either of type std::function, or convertible to it, so that I have a definite signature available.
This was troubling me a lot, since I had to bind a function in a situation when I did not know the arguments at the time. (A factory such as shown here How to implement serialization in C++)
For example (assume TSubClass::create is static)
template<typename TFactoryClass, typename TArgs...>
class Factory
{
public:
template<typename TSubClass>
void register(int id)
{
_map.insert(std::make_pair(id, std::bind(&TClass::create, /*how to give TArgs as placeholders??*/)));
}
}
instead I was able to replace the std::bind with a lambda expression without having to use all these helper classes!
template<typename TFactoryClass, typename TArgs...>
class Factory
{
public:
template<typename TSubClass>
void register(int id)
{
_map.insert(std::make_pair(id, [](TArgs... args) { TSubClass::create(args...); }));
}
}
as a bonus, you can also "bind" to constructors with this mechanism

std::bind with pointer to a function object

Given a pointer to a function object:
std::shared_ptr<std::function<double(double)>> f;
is there a built-in construct in C++11 that allows be to use this pointer in a std::bind statement? For example:
std::function<double()> g = std::bind(built_in(f), 0.0);
What I am doing is to use variadic template as:
template<typename Ret, typename... Args>
std::function<Ret(Args...)> get_fn(const std::shared_ptr<std::function<Ret(Args...)>>& f)
{
return [=](Args... args) -> Ret { return (*f)(args...); };
}
This allows me to write:
std::function<double()> g = std::bind(get_fn(f), 0.0);
Thanks in advance.
Edit: I should have been clearer. I need to use the instance of the function object inside the shared pointer for optimization purposes.
If we had a Standard function object for the dereference operator (much like std::plus<T> is for adding T with T) then we could involve a nested bind expression, but that is not the case -- plus we'd need a call operator because the usual substitutions that take place during the evaluation of nested bind expressions don't apply to the first argument! Your solution introduces an additional std::function, so I'm proposing some alternatives that don't.
Write your own call and dereference operators:
struct call {
template<typename Callable, typename... Args>
auto operator()(Callable&& callable, Args&&... args) const
// don't use std::result_of
-> decltype( std::declval<Callable>()(std::declval<Args>()...) )
{ return std::forward<Callable>(callable)(std::forward<Args>(args)...); }
};
struct dereference {
template<typename T>
auto operator()(T&& t) const
-> decltype( *std::declval<T>() )
{ return *std::forward<T>(t); }
};
template<typename IndirectCallable, typename... Args>
auto indirect_bind(IndirectCallable&& f, Args&&... args)
-> decltype( std::bind(call {}
, std::bind(dereference {}, std::declval<IndirectCallable>())
, std::declval<Args>()... ) )
{ return std::bind(call {}
, std::bind(dereference {}, std::forward<IndirectCallable>(f))
, std::forward<Args>()... ); }
You can then do auto g = indirect_bind(f, 0.0);. Here's a proof-of-concept that also shows how placeholders are appropriately dealt with.
I mention the above solution because functors like call and dereference are useful bricks -- I personally have them among my tools. My preferred solution however would be to write a polymorphic functor that does the indirection and call in one go:
template<typename Indirect>
struct indirect_callable_type {
// Encapsulation left as an exercise
Indirect f;
template<typename... Args>
auto operator()(Args&&... args)
// don't use std::result_of
-> decltype( std::declval<Indirect&>()(std::declval<Args>()...) )
{ return f(std::forward<Args>(args)...); }
template<typename... Args>
auto operator()(Args&&... args) const
// don't use std::result_of
-> decltype( std::declval<Indirect const&>()(std::declval<Args>()...) )
{ return f(std::forward<Args>(args)...); }
// Lvalue and rvalue *this version also left as an exercise
};
template<typename T>
indirect_callable_type<typename std::decay<T>::type>
make_indirect_callable(T&& t)
{ return { std::forward<T>(t) }; }
which you can, in fact, use as auto g = std::bind(make_indirect_callable(f), 0.0);.
I should mention that unlike your solution, those requires writing some types out-of-line. This is an unfortunate situation due to the inherent limitations of lambda expressions. Should you wish to stick with what you currently have, I have a minor recommendation that inside the lambda you std::forward<Args>(args)... the parameters. This might prove useful if you ever deal with move-only types.
There's a nice little hack you can use here, which is that INVOKE on a pointer to member function automatically indirects its object argument when passed a pointer or (even) a smart pointer (20.8.2p1 second bullet, definition of INVOKE):
#include <functional>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
std::shared_ptr<std::function<double(double)>> f
= std::make_shared<std::function<double(double)>>(
[](double d) { return d + 10.0; });
std::function<double()> g = std::bind(
&std::function<double(double)>::operator(), f, 0.0);
std::cout << g() << std::endl;
}
If you don't want to mention explicitly the type of f:
std::function<double()> g = std::bind(
&std::remove_reference<decltype(*f)>::type::operator(), f, 0.0);

C++ overloading by functor param count type

I am working on "LINQ to Objects" library for C++11.
I would like to do smth like this:
// filtering elements by their value
arr.where( [](double d){ return d < 0; } )
// filtering elements by their value and position
arr.where( [](double d, int i){ return i%2==0; } )
I down want to write arr.where_i( ... ) - it's ugly.
So i need function/method overloading by lambda-type...
This is my solution:
template<typename F>
auto my_magic_func(F f) -> decltype(f(1))
{
return f(1);
}
template<typename F>
auto my_magic_func(F f, void * fake = NULL) -> decltype(f(2,3))
{
return f(2,3);
}
int main()
{
auto x1 = my_magic_func([](int a){ return a+100; });
auto x2 = my_magic_func([](int a, int b){ return a*b; });
// x1 == 1+100
// x2 == 2*3
}
Is it SFINAE solution?
What can you suggest me?
Maybe something variadic:
#include <utility>
template <typename F, typename ...Args>
decltype(f(std::declval<Args>()...) my_magic_func(F f, Args &&... args)
{
return f(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
Edit: You can also use typename std::result_of<F(Args...)>::type for the return type, which does the same thing.
You certainly want SFINAE in your solution. Generally speaking, the result would look something like:
template<
typename Functor
, typename std::enable_if<
special_test<Functor>::value
, int
>::type = 0
>
return_type
my_magic_func(Functor f);
template<
typename Functor
, typename std::enable_if<
!special_test<Functor>::value
, int
>::type = 0
>
return_type
my_magic_func(Functor f);
such that only one overload would be active at any one time -- all that remains now is carefully crafting that special_test to have the behaviour we want. This is a careful balancing act as you don't want the test to be too specific; otherwise we lose generality. Quite a shame when writing generic code. You haven't given too much information (e.g. are you strictly interested in support for lambdas? monomorphic functors? polymorphic functors?), but I will assume for now that we have access to a value_type alias which would correspond to double in your example.
As such, here's an example condition that will check that a given type is Callable (that's a Standard concept) with signature bool(value_type); i.e. that it's a predicate of sorts:
template<typename Functor, typename ValueType>
struct is_unary_predicate {
typedef char (&accepted)[1];
typedef char (&refused)[2];
void consume(bool);
template<
typename X
, typename Y
, typename = decltype( consume(std::declval<X>()(std::declval<Y>())) )
>
accepted
test(X&&, Y&&);
refused test(...);
static constexpr bool value =
sizeof test(std::declval<Functor>(), std::declval<ValueType>())
== sizeof(accepted);
};
Personally I have an is_callable<F, Signature> trait so that I would only need to write something like template<typename Functor, typename ValueType> using is_unary_predicate = is_callable<Functor, bool(ValueType)>; (and similarly I could have an is_binary_predicate alias instead of letting the second overload of my_magic_func be a catch-all). Perhaps you'd want to use a similar trait for future uses of SFINAE (although it may be somewhat painful to write without variadic templates).