Is it possible to access a c++ template template constant parameter? - c++

I want to do something like this:
template<template<int d, class>
class container,
int dim = d, typename content_data_type>
class MyClass {
};
My Compiler tells me that this is not possible because "d" is not defined outside of:
template<int d, class> class container
Is there maybe another way of doing this ?
Thanks in advance for any help on this topic.
UPDATE:
# Rook: i want to access the "dim" and "content_data_type" parameters later on in a specialization
e.g.
General class:
template<template<int d, class>
class container>
class MyClass {
};
Spec. class:
template<>
class MyClass<vec> {
vec c; // Error: vec needs template parameters
};
This gave me an error because i used my template class "vec" whitout template parameters, i expected the compiler to deduce the template parameters, e.g. when i use
MyClass<vec<3, float> >
then variable "c" should have the type
vec<3, float>
Because this didn't work, I thought i can create two excplicit template paramters "dim" and "content_data_type" which i can access in the specialization class like this:
template<template<int d, class t>
class container,
int dim = d, typename content_data_type = t>
class MyClass<vec> {
vec<dim, content_data_type> c;
};
... and sorry again for not being specific enough with the initial question :)

I don't think what you're doing makes sense, so the answer is "no".
The template parameter container is a class template, not a class. When MyClass is instantiated, its argument is the whole template, not just one instantiation of it. So it's not possible to default the dimension of MyClass to "the dimension of container", because container doesn't have values for its own template parameters. Your class MyClass can create and use one or more instantiations of container with different values of d, but it isn't given any one of them in particular, it's given the template.
By analogy, suppose you pass a pointer-to-function f as a parameter to a function g. You can't then use "the arguments passed to f" in the definition of g. The function g can call f one or more times with different arguments, but it isn't given any one call in particular, it's given the function.
From your update:
e.g. when i use MyClass<vec<3, float> >
You don't use MyClass<vec<3, float> >, there's no such thing. As I say, MyClass takes a template not a class. vec is a template, vec<3, float> is a class. It sounds like maybe you don't need a template as a template parameter at all.

normally the container would expose the dim member, so this would work:
template< template< int, class> class container, int dim, class content_data_type >
class MyClass
{
public:
typedef typename container< dim, content_data_type > container_type;
static const int dim = container_type::dim;
};
template< int d, class >
class acontainer
{
public:
static const int dim = d;
};
MyClass< acontainer, 2, sometype > x;
std::cout << "container size " << x.dim << std::endl;

Below is a workaround, you have to define the two arguments as a type and a static exposed by the container class though (see for example boost::array)
#include <iostream>
template <int d, class T>
struct container
{
typedef T value_type;
static const int static_size = d;
};
template<typename cont, int d = cont::static_size, class T = typename cont::value_type>
struct A
{
static const int dimension = d;
};
int main(void)
{
A<container<10, int> > a;
std::cout << a.dimension << std::endl;
}

Related

How to use member type of a template class without specifying unnecessary template parameters?

I am trying to use a member type of a template class, which does not depend on any template parameters of the template class. I would like to keep the type as the member type due to its logic, but I do not want to specify the unnecessary template parameters of the class whenever I want to use the member type outside the class.
Consider the following:
class Dummy { };
// Template class
template<typename T>
class A {
public:
template<typename T2>
class MemberType : public T2 {
public:
T2 t2;
};
};
int main()
{
typename A<Dummy>::template MemberType<Dummy> m1; // okay
typename A::template MemberType<Dummy> m2; // not okay!
return 0;
}
I got the following compiler error when I try to compile using g++:
error: ‘template<class T> class A’ used without template parameters
typename A::template MemberType<Dummy> m2; // not okay!
Is there any workaround for this?
I am trying to use a member type of a template class, which does not
depend on any template parameters of the template class.
As a nested type within class A<T>, MemberType does depend on the template parameter T.
i.e. A<T>::MemberType<T2> and A<U>::MemberType<T2> are distinct classes.
What you want to do is not possible. A template is just a template. There is very little you can do with it before actually instantiating it for a concrete type. There could be a specialization for A that has no nested MemberType at all.
I would like to keep the type as the member type due to its logic,
[...]
...but it seems the logic is something else: The MemberType does not depend on A, hence it should not be part of a template that depends on A.
Sloppy speaking template<typename T> can be read as "everything that follows depends on T". Even if you think it does not, there could always be a specialization that changes anything inside A. If you want MemberType to not depend on T then declare it outside A.
Everything in a template is dependent on the parameter(s) - meaning a template-specialization might not even have class MemberType.
But you can make a default parameter - you still need to write <> though (but you can omit template usually - even typename, but I left that):
class Dummy { };
// Template class
template <class T = void>
class A {
public:
template<typename T2>
class MemberType : public T2 {
public:
T2 t2;
};
};
int main()
{
typename A<Dummy>::MemberType<Dummy> m1; // okay
typename A<>::MemberType<Dummy> m2; // also ok
return 0;
}
As others have pointed out, this somewhat looks like an anti-pattern though - since the inner type is not dependent on the parameter of the outer template class.
Is there any workaround for this?
MemberType is a type dependent from a template parameter so, necessarily, you have to pass through the containing template a template parameter to define it
typename A<SomeType>::template MemberType<AnotherType> m2;
Taking in count that your not interested in external SomeType parameter, the best workaround I can imagine is the use of a using as follows (or something similar)
template <typename T>
using MemberType_t = typename A<T>::template MemberType<T>;
to reduce typewriting.
The following is a full compiling simplified example
#include <type_traits>
class Dummy { };
template <typename>
struct A
{
template <typename T2>
struct MemberType : public T2
{ T2 t2; };
};
template <typename T>
using MemberType_t = typename A<T>::template MemberType<T>;
int main ()
{
typename A<Dummy>::template MemberType<Dummy> m1;
MemberType_t<Dummy> m2; // compile
static_assert( std::is_same<decltype(m1), decltype(m2)>::value, "!" );
}

c++ template interdependant types

I am trying to write simple hashtable in c++. My hashtable implementation template looks like this:
template<class k, class v, class h<k>, class e<k> >
class my_hash {
};
where
k = class type for key
v = class type for value
h = class type for hash fn
e = class type for equality fn
I have defined class h like this
template<class k>
class h {
};
I would specialize above template for different k types e.g. int, string etc. What I want to do is whenever I invoke my_hash template with k,it should automatically pick up the
h<k>
as the hash function type.For this to happen how do I define template ?
If I define it like I have shown it above, g++ gives compiler error saying h is not a template ? Could somebody please help me with this ?
I think what you need is called template template parameter and it is this:
template<class k, class v, template<typename> class h, template<typename> class e>
class my_hash
{
//then here you can intantiate the template template parameter as
h<k> hobj;
e<k> eobj;
//...
};
Now you can pass class template (which takes one type argument) as the third and fourth template argument to the above class template. Look for template template parameter in your book, or online, know more about it. You can start from here:
What are some uses of template template parameters in C++?
C++ Common Knowledge: Template Template Parameters
Hope that helps.
You can certainly use template template parameters, but your intended use case - where the template types are closely related - is a common one, that is idiomatically solved with traits.
With hash keys, usually the key type is closely related with the hash function and equality function. With traits you can do something like this silly example:
template <class T> struct key_hash_traits;
template <>
struct key_hash_traits<int>
{
typedef int key_type;
static size_t hash(int k) { return k*k / 42; }
};
template <class T, class V>
struct my_non_functioning_hash_table
{
void insert(T::key_type t, V v)
{
if (T::hash(t) == 13)
{
std::cout << "hello world\n";
}
}
};
int main()
{
int k = 256;
my_non_functioning_hash_table<key_hash_traits<int>, float> h;
h.insert(k, 3.14);
}
See how with key_hash_traits, all the interrelated types (key, hash func) are placed together, which is nice, and the definition of my_non_functioning_hash_table is simpler too as it only needs to refer to the trait. This example does assume you'll only ever have one hash func per key type, but you can easily modify that. I hope you get the general idea.
For more reading on traits, see these links:
Traits: a new and useful template technique
Traits: The else-if-then of Types

How to avoid a "template template template" template in c++

I have tried to implement a "template template template" - template class to fullfill my needs ( I am quite new in using template metaprogramming). Unfortunately, I have found the following topic too late:
Template Template Parameters
Nevertheless, I need to implement something like listed below.
According to the compiler the last typedef is not working. I am not sure, but I think this is due to the limitation of 3x template restriction. Is there any possibility to bypass a 3xtemplate definition in this simple example?
template < typename TValueType >
class ITTranslator
{
public:
ITTranslator() = 0;
virtual ~ITTranslator() = 0;
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
}
template < typename TValueType >
class TConcreteTranslator1 : public ITTranslator<TValueType>
{
public:
TConcreteTranslator1(){}
~TConcreteTranslator1(){}
void doSomething() {}
}
template < typename TValueType >
class TConcreteTranslator2 : public ITTranslator<TValueType>
{
public:
TConcreteTranslator2(){}
~TConcreteTranslator2(){}
void doSomething() {}
}
template <
typename TValueType,
template < typename TValueType > class TTranslatorValueType
>
class ITClassifier
{
public:
ITClassifier() = 0;
virtual ~ITClassifier() = 0;
}
template <
typename TValueType,
template < typename TValueType > class TTranslatorValueType
>
class TConcreteClassifier1 : public ITClassifier<TValueType,TTranslatorValueType >
{
public:
TConcreteClassifier1() {}
~TConcreteClassifier1() {}
void dodo(){}
}
template <
typename TValueType,
template <typename TValueType> class TTranslatorValueType,
template <template<typename TValueType> class TTranslatorValueType> class TClassifierValueType
>
class ITAlgorithm
{
public:
ITAlgorithm()=0;
virtual ~TAlgorithm()=0;
virtual run() = 0;
}
template <
typename TValueType,
template <typename TValueType> class TTranslatorValueType,
template <template<typename TValueType> class TTranslatorValueType> class TClassifierValueType
>
class TConcreteAlgorithm1 : public ITAlgorithm<TValueType,TTranslatorValueType,TTranslatorValueType>
{
public:
TConcreteAlgorithm1 (){}
~TConcreteAlgorithm1 (){}
run()
{
TClassifierValueType< TTranslatorValueType>* l_classifier_pt = new TClassifierValueType< TTranslatorValueType>( );
// add this object to a internal list...
}
}
int main()
{
typedef TConcreteTranslator1< cvbase::uint32_t > translator_t;
typedef TConcreteClassifier1< cvbase::uint32_t, TConcreteTranslator1> classifier_t;
typedef TConcreteAlgorithm1 < cvbase::uint32_t, TConcreteTranslator1, TConcreteClassifier1> algorithm_t; // not possible
return 0;
}
Thanks a lot, I really appreciate any help!
EDIT:
I have extended my listing (I am pretty sure it will not compile :)) to show the motivation why I am using my weird concept :)
There is really no need to pass template template parameter around
here. Usually you can just take a normal template argument and provide
a reasonable default:
template<typename ValueType>
struct translator {};
template<typename ValueType, typename Translator = translator<ValueType>>
struct Classifier {};
template<typename ValueType,
typename Translator = translator<ValueType>,
typename Classifier = classifier<ValueType, Translator>
>
struct Algorithm {};
This is done the same way for allocator aware containers.
And please do away with the horrible hungarian-notation prefixes.
NB: It seems from your usage of constructors and destructors that you
don't really have a grasp of basic C++. You might want to stay away
from templates before you have understood easier concepts.
Yes it is possible to avoid template template parameters (of any level).
A template is basically a type-level function. You feed it a type, and get another type back.
A template template parameter is itself a type-level function, and a template that accepts such parameter is a higher-order type-level function.
It is possible to implement higher-order type-level functions with member templates, without ever using template template parameters. I'm not really sure you need it for your design, but here's a quick and dirty example:
// regular type, a.k.a. zeroth-order type-level function,
// a.k.a. "type of kind *"
struct N
{
int a;
};
// a first-order type-level function, a.k.a. "type of kind *->*"
// it is wrapped in a regular type
struct B
{
template <class A> struct Impl
{
void foo(A a)
{
int aa = a.a;
}
};
};
// a second-order type-level function
// that accepts a (wrapped) first-order type function
// and also a regular type. the kind of it would be (*->*)->*->*
// it applies its first argument to its second argument
struct Z
{
template <class X, class Y> struct Impl
{
typename X::template Impl<Y> ya;
void bar()
{
ya.foo(Y());
}
};
};
// now this is something: a third-order type-level function
// that accepts a (wrapped) second-order type-level function
// and a (wrapped) first-order type-level function
// and a zeroth-order type-level function
// it applies its first argument to its second and third arguments
// it is also wrapped in a regular type for consistency
// try to figure out its kind
struct T
{
template <class P, class Q, class R> struct Impl
{
typename P::template Impl<Q, R> yb;
void baz()
{
yb.bar();
}
};
};
T::Impl<Z, B, N> tt;
In this case you don't really need to have template parameters, basically the only variable type is TValueType right?
The other types can be resolved on the class body using TValueType.
Something like this:
template <
typename TValueType
>
class TAlgorithm
{
public:
// TTranslator <TValueType> whatever
// TTranslatorValueType <TValueType> whatever
TAlgorithm(){}
~TAlgorithm(){}
}

How to test for presence of an inner class in a class via SFINAE?

I'm trying to have a different template specialization for classes which have an inner class with a particular name present. I've taken a clue from here and tried the following:
#include <iostream>
template< typename T, typename Check = void > struct HasXYZ
{ static const bool value = false; };
template< typename T > struct HasXYZ< T, typename T::XYZ >
{ static const bool value = true; };
struct Foo
{
class XYZ {};
};
struct FooWithTypedef
{
typedef void XYZ;
};
int main()
{
// The following line prints 1, as expected
std::cout << HasXYZ< FooWithTypedef >::value << std::endl;
// The following line prints 0. Why?
std::cout << HasXYZ< Foo >::value << std::endl;
return 0;
}
As you can see, if I test for a typedef-defined type in FooWithTypedef, it works. However, it does not work if the type is a genuine inner class. It also only works when the typedef-ed type in FooWithTypedef matches the default value of the second argument in the initial template declaration (which is void in my example). Could one explain what is going on here? How does the specialization process work here?
Answer to the initial question
The template specialization you defined here:
template <typename T> struct HasXYZ <T,typename T::XYZ>
{ static const bool value = true; };
will take effect when somebody uses the data type HasXYZ<A,A::XYZ> for some data type A.
Note that, whatever A is, A::XYZ is a data type totally independent of A. Inner classes are data types in their own right. When you use A as the first template argument, there is absolutely no reason for the compiler to assume that you want to use something called A:XYZ as the second argument, even if an inner class of that name exists, and even if doing so would lead the compiler to a template specialization that matches the template arguments exactly. Template specializations are found based on the template arguments provided by the coder, not based on further possible template arguments.
Hence when you use HasXYZ<Foo>, it falls back to using the default template argument void for the second parameter.
Needless to say that if you were to use HasXYZ<Foo,Foo:XYZ> explicitly, you'd get the expected output. But that obviously is not what you intended.
I am afraid the only way to get what you need is std::enable_if (or something that works in a similar way).
Answer to the additional question (after update)
Consider the simplification below:
template <typename T, typename Check = void>
struct A
{ static const bool value = false; };
template <typename T>
struct A<T,void>
{ static const bool value = true; };
The primary definition specifies a default argument of void for the second template parameter. But the specialization (second definition above) defines what class A actually looks like if the second template parameter really is void.
What this means is that if you use, say, A<int> in your code, the default argument will be supplemented so you get A<int,void>, and then the compiler finds the most fitting template specialization, which is the second one above.
So, while default template arguments are defined as part of the primary template declaration, making use of them does not imply that the primary template definition is used. This is basically because default template arguments are part of the template declaration, not the template definition (*).
This why in your example, when typedef void XYZ is included in FooWithTypedef, the second template parameter defaults to void and then the most fitting specialization is found. This works even if in the template specialization the second argument is defined as T::XYZ instead of void. If these are the same at the time of evaluation, the template specialization will be selected (§14.4 "Type equivalence").
(*) I didn't find a statement in the Standard that actually says it so clearly. But there is §14.1/10, which describes the case where you have multiple declarations (but only one primary definition) of a template:
(§14.1/10) The set of default template-arguments available for use with a template declaration or definition is obtained by merging the default arguments from the definition (if in scope) and all declarations in scope in the same way default function arguments are (8.3.6). [ Example:
template<class T1, class T2 = int> class A;
template<class T1 = int, class T2> class A;
is equivalent to
template<class T1 = int, class T2 = int> class A;
].
This suggests that the mechanism behind default template arguments is independent of that used to identify the most fitting specialization of the template.
In addition, there are two existing SO posts that refer to this mechanism as well:
This reply to Template specialization to use default type if class member typedef does not exist
Default values of template parameters in the class template specializations
Here is another version that detects the presence of the inner class :
#include <iostream>
template< typename T >
struct HasXYZ
{
typedef char yes;
typedef struct{ char d[2]; } no;
template<typename T1>
static yes test( typename T1::XYZ * );
template<typename T1>
static no test(...);
static const bool value = ( sizeof( test<T>(0) ) == sizeof( yes ) );
};
struct Foo
{
class XYZ {};
};
struct Bar
{
class ABC {};
};
int main()
{
std::cout << std::boolalpha << HasXYZ< Foo >::value << std::endl;
std::cout << std::boolalpha << HasXYZ< Bar >::value << std::endl;
}
A::XYZ would need to void to have the partial specialization selected, which can never be the case for a class type. One way to make it work is using a fake dependant void typename:
template<class T>
struct void_{ typedef void type; };
template<class T, class = void>
struct has_XYZ{ static bool const value = false; };
template<class T>
struct has_XYZ<T, typename void_<typename T::XYZ>::type>{
static bool const value = true;
};
For an explanation on how this works, see this question.

Default values in templates with template arguments ( C++ )

Assume I have a template (called ExampleTemplate) that takes two arguments: a container type (e.g. list, vector) and a contained type (e.g. float, bool, etc). Since containers are in fact templates, this template has a template param. This is what I had to write:
#include <vector>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
template < template <class,class> class C, typename T>
class ExampleTemplate {
C<T,allocator<T> > items;
public:
....
};
main()
{
ExampleTemplate<list,int> a;
ExampleTemplate<vector,float> b;
}
You may ask what is the "allocator" thing about. Well, Initially, I tried the obvious thing...
template < template <class> class C, typename T>
class ExampleTemplate {
C<T> items;
};
...but I unfortunately found out that the default argument of the allocator...
vector<T, Alloc>
list<T, Alloc>
etc
...had to be explicitely "reserved" in the template declaration.
This, as you can see, makes the code uglier, and forces me to reproduce the default values of the template arguments (in this case, the allocator).
Which is BAD.
EDIT: The question is not about the specific problem of containers - it is about "Default values in templates with template arguments", and the above is just an example. Answers depending on the knowledge that STL containers have a "::value_type" are not what I am after. Think of the generic problem: if I need to use a template argument C in a template ExampleTemplate, then in the body of ExampleTemplate, do I have to reproduce the default arguments of C when I use it? If I have to, doesn't that introduce unnecessary repetition and other problems (in this case, where C is an STL container, portability issues - e.g. "allocator" )?
Perhaps you'd prefer this:
#include <vector>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
template <class Container>
class ForExamplePurposes {
typedef typename Container::value_type T;
Container items;
public:
};
int main()
{
ForExamplePurposes< list<int> > a;
ForExamplePurposes< vector<float> > b;
}
This uses "static duck typing". It is also a bit more flexible as it doesn't force the Container type to support STL's Allocator concept.
Perhaps using the type traits idiom can give you a way out:
#include <vector>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
struct MyFunkyContainer
{
typedef int funky_type;
// ... rest of custom container declaration
};
// General case assumes STL-compatible container
template <class Container>
struct ValueTypeOf
{
typedef typename Container::value_type type;
};
// Specialization for MyFunkyContainer
template <>
struct ValueTypeOf<MyFunkyContainer>
{
typedef MyFunkyContainer::funky_type type;
};
template <class Container>
class ForExamplePurposes {
typedef typename ValueTypeOf<Container>::type T;
Container items;
public:
};
int main()
{
ForExamplePurposes< list<int> > a;
ForExamplePurposes< vector<float> > b;
ForExamplePurposes< MyFunkyContainer > c;
}
Someone who wants to use ForExamplePurposes with a non-STL-compliant container would need to specialize the ValueTypeOf traits class.
I would propose to create adapters.
Your class should be created with the exact level of personalization that is required by the class:
template <template <class> C, template T>
class Example
{
typedef T Type;
typedef C<T> Container;
};
EDIT: attempting to provide more is nice, but doomed to fail, look at the various expansions:
std::vector<T>: std::vector<T, std::allocator<T>>
std::stack<T>: std::stack<T, std::deque<T>>
std::set<T>: std::set<T, std::less<T>, std::allocator<T>>
The second is an adapter, and so does not take an allocator, and the third does not have the same arity. You need therefore to put the onus on the user.
If a user wishes to use it with a type that does not respect the expressed arity, then the simplest way for him is to provide (locally) an adapter:
template <typename T>
using Vector = std::vector<T>; // C++0x
Example<Vector, bool> example;
I am wondering about the use of parameter packs (variadic templates) here... I don't know if declaring C as template <class...> C would do the trick or if the compiler would require a variadic class then.
You have to give the full template signature, including default parameters, if you want to be able to use the template template parameter the usual way.
template <typename T, template <class U, class V = allocator<U> > class C>
class ExampleTemplate {
C<T> items;
public:
....
};
If you want to handle other containers that the one from the STL, you can delegate container construction to a helper.
// Other specialization failed. Instantiate a std::vector.
template <typename T, typename C>
struct make_container_
{
typedef std::vector<T> result;
};
// STL containers
template <typename T, template <class U, class V = allocator<U> > class C>
struct make_container_<T,C>
{
typedef C<T> result;
};
// Other specializations
...
template <typename T, typename C>
class ExampleTemplate {
make_container_<T,C>::result items;
public:
....
};
I think, it is required to reproduce all template parameters, even default. Note, that Standard itself does not use template template parameters for containter adaptors, and prefers to use regular template parameters:
template < class T , class Container = deque <T > > class queue { ... };
template < class T , class Container = vector <T>, class Compare = less < typename Container :: value_type > > class priority_queue { ... };
The following code will allow you to do something like you're asking for. Of course, this won't work with standard containers, since this has to already be part of the template class that's being passed into the template.
/* Allows you to create template classes that allow users to specify only some
* of the default parameters, and some not.
*
* Example:
* template <typename A = use_default, typename B = use_default>
* class foo
* {
* typedef use_default_param<A, int> a_type;
* typedef use_default_param<B, double> b_type;
* ...
* };
*
* foo<use_default, bool> x;
* foo<char, use_default> y;
*/
struct use_default;
template<class param, class default_type>
struct default_param
{
typedef param type;
};
template<class default_type>
struct default_param<use_default, default_type>
{
typedef default_type type;
};
But I don't really think this is what you're looking for. What you're doing with the containers is unlikely to be applicable to arbitrary containers as many of them will have the problem you're having with multiple default parameters with non-obvious types as defaults.
As the question exactly described the problem I had in my code (--I'm using Visual Studio 2015), I figured out an alternative solution which I wanted to share.
The idea is the following: instead of passing a template template parameter to the ExampleTemplate class template, one can also pass a normal typename which contains a type DummyType as dummy parameter, say std::vector<DummyType>.
Then, inside the class, one replace this dummy parameter by something reasonable. For replacement of the typethe following helper classes can be used:
// this is simply the replacement for a normal type:
// it takes a type T, and possibly replaces it with ReplaceByType
template<typename T, typename ReplaceWhatType, typename ReplaceByType>
struct replace_type
{
using type = std::conditional_t<std::is_same<T, ReplaceWhatType>::value, ReplaceByType, T>;
};
// this sets up the recursion, such that replacement also happens
// in contained nested types
// example: in "std::vector<T, allocator<T> >", both T's are replaced
template<template<typename ...> class C, typename ... Args, typename ReplaceWhatType, typename ReplaceByType>
struct replace_type<C<Args ...>, ReplaceWhatType, ReplaceByType>
{
using type = C<typename replace_type<Args, ReplaceWhatType, ReplaceByType>::type ...>;
};
// an alias for convenience
template<typename ... Args>
using replace_type_t = typename replace_type<Args ...>::type;
Note the recursive step in replace_type, which takes care that types nested in other classes are replaced as well -- with this, for example, in std::vector<T, allocator<T> >, both T's are replaced and not only the first one. The same goes for more than one nesting hierarchy.
Next, you can use this in your ExampleTemplate-class,
struct DummyType {};
template <typename C, typename T>
struct ExampleTemplate
{
replace_type_t<C, DummyType, T> items;
};
and call it via
int main()
{
ExampleTemplate<std::vector<DummyType>, float> a;
a.items.push_back(1.0);
//a.items.push_back("Hello"); // prints an error message which shows that DummyType is replaced correctly
ExampleTemplate<std::list<DummyType>, float> b;
b.items.push_back(1.0);
//b.items.push_back("Hello"); // prints an error message which shows that DummyType is replaced correctly
ExampleTemplate<std::map<int, DummyType>, float> c;
c.items[0]=1.0;
//c.items[0]="Hello"; // prints an error message which shows that DummyType is replaced correctly
}
DEMO
Beside the not-that-nice syntac, this has the advantage that
It works with any number of default template parameters -- for instance, consider the case with std::map in the example.
There is no need to explicitly specify any default template parameters whatsoever.
It can be easily extended to more dummy parameters (whereas then it probably should not be called by users ...).
By the way: Instead of the dummy type you can also use the std::placeholder's ... just realized that it might be a bit nicer.