I am trying to use boost::is_base_of in order to detect if a CRTP base class Generic can identify its peers i.e. classes that T is also derived from.
As shown in Generic<T>::init(), I would like to use these mechanisms in order to allow the class Generic<T> add pointers to functions one of its peers Bar1 or Bar2 (from which T also derives) to a map. Unfortunately boost::is_base_of is unable to detect classes, such as Bar3, that T does not derive from.
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <string>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <map>
#include <boost/type_traits.hpp>
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
template<typename T>
class Bar
{
public:
void setValue()
{
std::cout << typeid(this).name() << std::endl;
}
};
class Bar1 : public Bar<char>{};
class Bar2 : public Bar<bool>{};
class Bar3 : public Bar<long>{};
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
template<typename T>
class Generic
{
public:
typedef void (T::*setter)();
void init();
};
template<typename T>
void Generic<T>::init()
{
std::map<std::string , Generic<T>::setter> setterMap;
if( boost::is_base_of<Bar1, T >::value ) setterMap["bar1"] = &Bar1::setValue;
if( boost::is_base_of<Bar2, T >::value ) setterMap["bar2"] = &Bar2::setValue;
if( boost::is_base_of<Bar3, T >::value ) setterMap["bar3"] = &Bar3::setValue;
std::cout << setterMap.size() << std::endl;
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
template<typename T>
class Foo : public Bar1 , public Bar2 , public Generic<Foo<T> >
{
public:
};
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
int main()
{
Foo<int> f;
f.init();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
gcc error message:
In static member function ‘static void Generic<T>::init() [with T = Foo<int>]’:
error: cannot convert ‘void (Bar<long int>::*)()’ to ‘void (Foo<int>::*)()’ in assignment
Edit
To provide some context for this question. I'm trying to store pointers to the setValue methods of the base classes of each Foo<T> in a map for quick access. The choice of setValue to call depends on a string, thus the map. Another class X may inherit Bar1 and Bar3 but not Bar2, and as before I would have to store pointers to the appropriate setValue's for quick access. Generic<T> aims to fulfil this role for Foo, X etc.
Jay is correct. I made the following changes and this appears to work.
template <bool, typename T> struct AddSetter;
template <typename T> struct AddSetter <true, T>
{
template<typename F>
void Set (std::map<std::string , typename Generic<T>::setter>& setterMap, const std::string& key, F fn)
{
setterMap[key] = fn;
}
};
template <typename T> struct AddSetter <false, T>
{
template<typename F>
void Set (std::map<std::string , typename Generic<T>::setter>& setterMap, const std::string& key, F fn)
{
}
};
template<typename T>
void Generic<T>::init()
{
std::map<std::string , Generic<T>::setter> setterMap;
AddSetter<boost::is_base_of<Bar1, T >::value, T>().Set (setterMap, "bar1", &Bar1::setValue);
AddSetter<boost::is_base_of<Bar2, T >::value, T>().Set (setterMap, "bar2", &Bar2::setValue);
AddSetter<boost::is_base_of<Bar3, T >::value, T>().Set (setterMap, "bar3", &Bar3::setValue);
std::cout << setterMap.size() << std::endl;
}
Off the top of my head I just can't envision this working without a middle man...
Is it possible to create a struct which encapsulates the desired logic with operator overloading? The struct would have a raw pointer and then you could deference it with an overload to ensure it was used correctly.
Another seemingly readable way is to create another forward facing class which acts as a Facade and then utilize that.
This is similar to Override contra-variance workaround needed
Related
I want to create an event system that uses lambda functions as its subscribers/listeners, and an event type to assign them to the specific event that they should subscribe to. The lambdas should have variable arguments, as different kinds of events use different kinds of arguments/provide the subscribers with different kinds of data.
For my dispatcher, I have the following:
class EventDispatcher {
public:
static void subscribe(EventType event_type, std::function<void(...)> callback);
void queue_event(Event event);
void dispatch_queue();
private:
std::queue<Event*> event_queue;
std::map<EventType, std::function<void(...)>> event_subscribers;
};
No issues here, but when I go to implement the subscribe() function in my .cpp file, like this:
void EventDispatcher::subscribe(EventType event_type, std::function<void(...)> callback) {
... (nothing here yet)
}
The IDE shows me this:
Implicit instantiation of undefined template 'std::function<void (...)>'
Don't try to plop event callbacks with different parameter types directly into a single map.
Instead, create a template to store the callback (templated by the parameter types), and store pointers to its non-template base.
Here's how I would do it:
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
#include <memory>
#include <queue>
#include <tuple>
#include <typeindex>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
struct Event
{
virtual ~Event() = default;
};
struct Observer
{
virtual ~Observer() = default;
virtual void Observe(const Event &e) const = 0;
};
template <typename ...P>
struct BasicEvent : Event
{
std::tuple<P...> params;
BasicEvent(P ...params) : params(std::move(params)...) {}
struct EventObserver : Observer
{
std::function<void(P...)> func;
template <typename T>
EventObserver(T &&func) : func(std::forward<T>(func)) {}
void Observe(const Event &e) const override
{
std::apply(func, dynamic_cast<const BasicEvent &>(e).params);
}
};
// We need a protected destructor, but adding one silently removes the move operations.
// And adding the move operations removes the copy operations, so we add those too.
BasicEvent(const BasicEvent &) = default;
BasicEvent(BasicEvent &&) = default;
BasicEvent &operator=(const BasicEvent &) = default;
BasicEvent &operator=(BasicEvent &&) = default;
protected:
~BasicEvent() {}
};
class EventDispatcher
{
public:
template <typename E>
void Subscribe(typename E::EventObserver observer)
{
event_subscribers.insert_or_assign(typeid(E), std::make_unique<typename E::EventObserver>(std::move(observer)));
}
template <typename E>
void QueueEvent(E &&event)
{
event_queue.push(std::make_unique<std::remove_cvref_t<E>>(std::forward<E>(event)));
}
void DispatchQueue()
{
while (!event_queue.empty())
{
Event &event = *event_queue.front();
event_subscribers.at(typeid(event))->Observe(event);
event_queue.pop();
}
}
private:
std::queue<std::unique_ptr<Event>> event_queue;
std::map<std::type_index, std::unique_ptr<Observer>> event_subscribers;
};
struct EventA : BasicEvent<> {using BasicEvent::BasicEvent;};
struct EventB : BasicEvent<> {using BasicEvent::BasicEvent;};
struct EventC : BasicEvent<int, int> {using BasicEvent::BasicEvent;};
int main()
{
EventDispatcher dis;
dis.Subscribe<EventA>([]{std::cout << "Observing A!\n";});
dis.Subscribe<EventB>([]{std::cout << "Observing B!\n";});
dis.Subscribe<EventC>([](int x, int y){std::cout << "Observing C: " << x << ", " << y << "!\n";});
dis.QueueEvent(EventA());
dis.QueueEvent(EventB());
dis.QueueEvent(EventC(1, 2));
dis.DispatchQueue();
}
You could create your own version of std::function that accepts functions of any signature using type erasure. This will require some heavy lifting though. I will provide a solution for void functions which requires C++17, because we will use std::any.
I will walk you through the steps first and then provide a full solution in code.
First you create some function_traits that capture the number and type of arguments of any kind of function using template meta-programming. We can "borrow" from here.
Then you create a class VariadicVoidFunction that has a templated call operator.
This call operator creates a std::vector<std::any> and passes it to the invoke method of a member of VariadicVoidFunction, which is a (resource-owning smart) pointer of type VariadicVoidFunction::Concept.
VariadicVoidFunction::Concept is an abstract base class with a virtual invoke method that accepts std::vector<std::any>.
VariadicVoidFunction::Function is a class template, where the template parameter is a function. It stores this function as member and inherits VariadicVoidFunction::Concept. It implements the invoke method. Here, we can std::any_cast the vector elements back to the expected types, which we can extract using function_traits. This allows us to call the actual function with the correct argument types.
VariadicVoidFunction gets a templated constructor accepting any kind of function F. It creates an instance of type VariadicVoidFunction::Function<F> and stores it in an owning (smart) pointer.
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include <any>
// function_traits and specializations are needed to get arity of any function type
template<class F>
struct function_traits;
// ... function pointer
template<class R, class... Args>
struct function_traits<R(*)(Args...)> : public function_traits<R(Args...)>
{};
// ... normal function
template<class R, class... Args>
struct function_traits<R(Args...)>
{
static constexpr std::size_t arity = sizeof...(Args);
template <std::size_t N>
struct argument
{
static_assert(N < arity, "error: invalid parameter index.");
using type = typename std::tuple_element<N,std::tuple<Args...>>::type;
};
};
// ... non-const member function
template<class C, class R, class... Args>
struct function_traits<R(C::*)(Args...)> : public function_traits<R(C&,Args...)>
{};
// ... const member function
template<class C, class R, class... Args>
struct function_traits<R(C::*)(Args...) const> : public function_traits<R(C const&,Args...)>
{};
// ... functor (no overloads allowed)
template<class F>
struct function_traits
{
private:
using call_type = function_traits<decltype(&F::operator())>;
public:
static constexpr std::size_t arity = call_type::arity - 1;
template <std::size_t N>
struct argument
{
static_assert(N < arity, "error: invalid parameter index.");
using type = typename call_type::template argument<N+1>::type;
};
};
template<class F>
struct function_traits<F&> : public function_traits<F>
{};
template<class F>
struct function_traits<F&&> : public function_traits<F>
{};
// type erased void function taking any number of arguments
class VariadicVoidFunction
{
public:
template <typename F>
VariadicVoidFunction(F const& f)
: type_erased_function{std::make_shared<Function<F>>(f)} {}
template <typename... Args>
void operator()(Args&&... args){
return type_erased_function->invoke(std::vector<std::any>({args...}));
}
private:
struct Concept {
virtual ~Concept(){}
virtual void invoke(std::vector<std::any> const& args) = 0;
};
template <typename F>
class Function : public Concept
{
public:
Function(F const& f) : func{f} {}
void invoke(std::vector<std::any> const& args) override final
{
return invoke_impl(
args,
std::make_index_sequence<function_traits<F>::arity>()
);
}
private:
template <size_t... I>
void invoke_impl(std::vector<std::any> const& args, std::index_sequence<I...>)
{
return func(std::any_cast<typename function_traits<F>::template argument<I>::type>(args[I])...);
}
F func;
};
std::shared_ptr<Concept> type_erased_function;
};
You can use it like this:
#include <unordered_map>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
VariadicVoidFunction([](){});
std::unordered_map<size_t, VariadicVoidFunction> map =
{
{0, VariadicVoidFunction{[](){ std::cout << "no argument\n"; }} },
{1, VariadicVoidFunction{[](int i){ std::cout << "one argument\n"; }} },
{2, VariadicVoidFunction{[](double j, const char* x){ std::cout<< "two arguments\n"; }} }
};
map.at(0)();
map.at(1)(42);
map.at(2)(1.23, "Hello World");
return 0;
}
no argument
one argument
two arguments
Demo on Godbolt Compiler explorer
Note that this is a prototypical solution to get you started. One downside is that all arguments will be copied into the std::any You could avoid this by passing pointers to std::any, but you have to be careful with lifetimes when you do this.
After the input from #joergbrech and #HolyBlackCat I made this
enum class EventType {
WindowClosed, WindowResized, WindowFocused, WindowLostFocus, WindowMoved,
AppTick, AppUpdate, AppRender,
KeyPressed, KeyRelease,
MouseButtonPressed, MouseButtonRelease, MouseMoved, MouseScrolled,
ControllerAxisChange, ControllerButtonPressed, ControllerConnected, ControllerDisconnected
};
class IEvent {
public:
IEvent(EventType event_type) {
this->event_type = event_type;
}
EventType get_event_type() {
return event_type;
}
private:
EventType event_type;
};
class IEventSubscriber {
public:
/**
* #param event The event that is passed to the subscriber by the publisher; should be cast to specific event
* */
virtual void on_event(IEvent *event) = 0;
EventType get_event_type() {
return event_type;
}
protected:
explicit IEventSubscriber(EventType event_type) {
this->event_type = event_type;
}
private:
EventType event_type;
};
class FORGE_API EventPublisher {
public:
static void subscribe(IEventSubscriber *subscriber);
static void queue_event(IEvent *event);
static void dispatch_queue();
private:
static std::queue<IEvent*> event_queue;
static std::set<IEventSubscriber*> event_subscribers;
};
I've tested it and I get the expected result from this solution. For the full code solution -> https://github.com/F4LS3/forge-engine
std::function has no specialization for variadic function types.
You likely want std::function<void()>.
I am wondering whether there is a practical way of writing something like the following code using the C++17 standard:
#include <string>
#include <functional>
#include <unordered_map>
template <class Arg>
struct Foo
{
using arg_type = Arg;
using fun_type = std::function< void(Arg&) >;
fun_type fun;
void call( Arg& arg ) { fun(arg); }
};
struct Bar
{
using map_type = std::unordered_map<std::string,Foo>; // that's incorrect
map_type map;
auto& operator[] ( std::string name ) { return map[name]; }
};
In the code above, the template argument of class Foo corresponds to the input type of some unary function which returns nothing. Different instances of Foo with different template types correspond to functions taking arguments of different types. The class Bar simply aims at assigning a name to these functions, but obviously the current declaration of the map is incorrect because it needs to know about the template type of Foo.
Or does it?
Doing this with a compile-time check is, unfortunately, not feasible. You can, however, provide that functionality with a runtime check.
A map's value type can only be one single type, and Foo<T> is a different type for each T. However, we can work around this by giving every Foo<T> a common base class, have a map of pointers to it, and use a virtual function to dispatch call() to the appropriate subclass.
For this though, the type of the argument must also always be the same. As mentioned by #MSalters, std::any can help with that.
Finally, we can wrap all that using the pimpl pattern so that it looks like there's just a single neat Foo type:
#include <cassert>
#include <string>
#include <functional>
#include <any>
#include <unordered_map>
#include <memory>
struct Foo {
public:
template<typename T, typename FunT>
void set(FunT fun) {
pimpl_ = std::make_unique<FooImpl<T, FunT>>(std::move(fun));
}
// Using operator()() instead of call() makes this a functor, which
// is a little more flexible.
void operator()(const std::any& arg) {
assert(pimpl_);
pimpl_->call(arg);
}
private:
struct IFooImpl {
virtual ~IFooImpl() = default;
virtual void call( const std::any& arg ) const = 0;
};
template <class Arg, typename FunT>
struct FooImpl : IFooImpl
{
FooImpl(FunT fun) : fun_(std::move(fun)) {}
void call( const std::any& arg ) const override {
fun_(std::any_cast<Arg>(arg));
}
private:
FunT fun_;
};
std::unique_ptr<IFooImpl> pimpl_;
};
// Usage sample
#include <iostream>
void bar(int v) {
std::cout << "bar called with: " << v << "\n";
}
int main() {
std::unordered_map<std::string, Foo> table;
table["aaa"].set<int>(bar);
// Even works with templates/generic lambdas!
table["bbb"].set<float>([](auto x) {
std::cout << "bbb called with " << x << "\n";
});
table["aaa"](14);
table["bbb"](12.0f);
}
see on godbolt
Is it possible to create a class template with a member function definition only if the object created is of a specific type?
I've created a template class I will use for storing either int or doubles, but for doubles I would like to be able to set precision too (objects created with myclass < double> should have this functionality, but for myclass< int> there is no need for that to be present at all).
I know I can use a base class template, and create new classes "myInt", "myDouble" using that and implement the functionality only in the myDouble class, but I think it would be cleaner to define the functionality (both the function and a member variable) for doubles in the class template, if that's possible and preferable?
Let's add an example to show what I want to do:
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
class commonBase{
public:
void setState(int state);
virtual void print() = 0;
private:
int _my_state;
};
template <typename T>
class generalObject : public commonBase {
public:
void value(T value);
void print(){ std::cout << "My value: " << _my_value << std::endl; }
private:
T _my_value;
};
template <typename T>
void generalObject<T>::value(T value){
_my_value = value;
}
// Is there any way do specialize only only whats different from the generalObject template?
// Here I thought I could specialize the case where a generalObject is created of <double>, but
// when I do, nothing is derived from generalObject (or at least not visible as far as I can tell)
template<>
class generalObject<double>{
public:
void setPrecision(int precision){ _my_precision = precision; }
// here I would like a special implementation of print(), which overrides the print() in generalObject
// and instead also prints according to the precision set when the object is of <double> type.
// Row below an example which doesn't work (compiler error, _my_value undefined)
void print(){ std::cout << "My value: " << std::setprecision(_my_precision) << _my_value << std::endl; }
private:
int _my_precision;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
generalObject<int> o1;
o1.value(1);
o1.print();
o1.setState(1); //inherited from the commonBase
generalObject<double> o2;
o2.setPrecision(2);
o2.value(2); //here value isn't available (compile error)
o2.print();
o2.setState(123); //also isn't available (compile error)
}
Sure.
template <typename T> class Poly;
void set_precision(Poly<double>* self, int a) {};
If you really want dot notation you can then add:
template <typename T> class Poly {
public: void set_precision(int a){::set_precision(this,a);}
...
However I think you should think about what you're trying to accomplish. If MyInt and MyDouble have different fields and different methods and different implementations, they should probably be different classes.
This can be solved using template specialization.
We first define a common template...
template< typename T >
struct myclass
{
// common stuff
};
... and specialize that for double:
template<>
struct myclass<double>
{
int precision = 10;
void setprecision( int p ){ precision = p; }
};
Now the setprecision() method can only be called for myclass<double>. The compiler will complain if we try to call it for anything else, like myclass<int>.
int main()
{
myclass<double> d;
d.setprecision( 42 ); // compiles
myclass<int> i;
i.setprecision( 42 ); // fails to compile, as expected
}
Demo.
The basic way to have a member function of a class template exist only for some template parameters is to create a specialization of the class template for those template parameters.
template<typename T>class X{
// general definition
};
template<>class X<double>{
// double-specific definition
};
The downside of this is that the specialization will need to duplicate anything that is common. One way to address this is to move the common things out to a base class template:
template<typename T>class Xcommon{
// common stuff
};
template<typename T>class X: public Xcommon<T>{
// general definition
};
template<>class X<double>: public Xcommon<double>{
// double-specific definition
};
Alternatively, you can do it the other way: put the common stuff in the derived class, and the extras in the base, and specialize the base:
template<typename T>class Xextras{
// empty by default
};
template<typename T>class X: public Xextras<T>{
// common definition
};
template<>class Xextras<double>{
// double-specific definition
};
Either way can work; which is better depends on the details.
Both these methods work for data members and member functions.
Alternatively, you can use enable_if to mean that member functions are not selected by overload resolution if the template parameter doesn't meet a required condition. This requires that the member function is itself a template.
template<typename T>class X{
template<typename U=T> // make it a template,
std::enable_if<std::is_same_v<U,double>> double_specific_function(){
// do stuff
}
};
I wouldn't recommend this option unless there is no other choice.
If the question is about a member function, then here is one of the ways to do it without class template specialization:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename T>
struct Type {
template <typename U = T,
typename = typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, double>::value>::type>
void only_for_double() {
std::cout << "a doubling" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
Type<int> n;
Type<double> d;
// n.only_for_double(); // does not compile.
d.only_for_double();
}
Example on ideone.com
If you require a data-member presence based on the template parameter, you will have to do some kind of specialization, in which case it is, probably, simpler to put the function into corresponding specialization.
EDIT: After OP made his question more specific
Here is one way to do it without extra class and getting rid of virtual functions. Hope it helps.
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
template <typename T, typename Derived = void>
class commonBase {
public:
void setState(int state) {
_my_state = state;
}
void value(T value) {
_my_value = value;
}
template <typename U = Derived,
typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, void>::value,
void * >::type = nullptr>
void print() const {
std::cout << "My value: " << _my_value << std::endl;
}
template <typename U = Derived,
typename std::enable_if<!std::is_same<U, void>::value,
void * >::type = nullptr>
void print() const {
static_cast<Derived const *>(this)->_print();
}
protected:
T _my_value;
int _my_state;
};
template <typename T>
class generalObject : public commonBase<T> {
};
template<>
class generalObject<double> : public commonBase<double, generalObject<double>> {
private:
friend commonBase<double, generalObject<double>>;
void _print() const {
std::cout << "My value: " << std::setprecision(_my_precision) <<
_my_value << std::endl;
}
public:
void setPrecision(int precision){ _my_precision = precision; }
private:
int _my_precision;
};
int main(){
generalObject<int> o1;
o1.value(1);
o1.print();
o1.setState(1);
generalObject<double> o2;
o2.setPrecision(2);
o2.value(1.234);
o2.print();
o2.setState(123);
}
Same code on ideone.com
To implement a property system for polymorphic objects, I first declared the following structure:
enum class access_rights_t
{
NONE = 0,
READ = 1 << 0,
WRITE = 1 << 1,
READ_WRITE = READ | WRITE
};
struct property_format
{
type_index type;
string name;
access_rights_t access_rights;
};
So a property is defined with a type, a name and access rights (read-only, write-only or read-write). Then I started the property class as follows:
template<typename Base>
class property : property_format
{
public:
template<typename Derived, typename T>
using get_t = function<T(const Derived&)>;
template<typename Derived, typename T>
using set_t = function<void(Derived&, const T&)>;
private:
get_t<Base, any> get_f;
set_t<Base, any> set_f;
The property is associated to a base type, but may (and will) be filled with accessors associated to an instance of a derived type. The accessors will be encapsulated with functions accessing std::any objects on an instance of type Base. The get and set methods are declared as follows (type checking are not shown here to make the code minimal):
public:
template<typename T>
T get(const Base& b) const
{
return any_cast<T>(this->get_f(b));
}
template<typename T>
void set(Base& b, const T& value_)
{
this->set_f(b, any(value_));
}
Then the constructors (access rights are set to NONE to make the code minimal):
template<typename Derived, typename T>
property(
const string& name_,
get_t<Derived, T> get_,
set_t<Derived, T> set_ = nullptr
):
property_format{
typeid(T),
name_,
access_rights_t::NONE
},
get_f{caller<Derived, T>{get_}},
set_f{caller<Derived, T>{set_}}
{
}
template<typename Derived, typename T>
property(
const string& name_,
set_t<Derived, T> set_
):
property{
name_,
nullptr,
set_
}
{
}
The functions passed as arguments are encapsulated through the helper structure caller:
private:
template<typename Derived, typename T>
struct caller
{
get_t<Derived, T> get_f;
set_t<Derived, T> set_f;
caller(get_t<Derived, T> get_):
get_f{get_}
{
}
caller(set_t<Derived, T> set_):
set_f{set_}
{
}
any operator()(const Base& object_)
{
return any{
this->get_f(
static_cast<const Derived&>(object_)
)
};
}
void operator()(Base& object_, const any& value_)
{
this->set_f(
static_cast<Derived&>(object_),
any_cast<Value>(value_)
);
}
};
Now, considering these dummy classes.
struct foo
{
};
struct bar : foo
{
int i, j;
bar(int i_, int j_):
i{i_},
j{j_}
{
}
int get_i() const {return i;}
void set_i(const int& i_) { this->i = i_; }
};
I can write the following code:
int main()
{
// declare accessors through bar methods
property<foo>::get_t<bar, int> get_i = &bar::get_i;
property<foo>::set_t<bar, int> set_i = &bar::set_i;
// declare a read-write property
property<foo> p_i{"bar_i", get_i, set_i};
// declare a getter through a lambda
property<foo>::get_t<bar, int> get_j = [](const bar& b_){ return b_.j; };
// declare a read-only property
property<foo> p_j{"bar_j", get_j};
// dummy usage
bar b{42, 24};
foo& f = b;
cout << p_i.get<int>(f) << " " << p_j.get<int>(f) << endl;
p_i.set<int>(f, 43);
cout << p_i.get<int>(f) << endl;
}
My problem is that template type deduction doesn't allow me to declare a property directly passing the accessors as arguments, as in:
property<foo> p_i{"bar_i", &bar::get_i, &bar::set_i};
Which produces the following error:
prog.cc:62:5: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
prog.cc:149:50: note: mismatched types std::function<void(Type&, const Value&)> and int (bar::*)() const
property<foo> p_i{"bar_i", &bar::get_i, set_i};
Is there a way to address this problem while keeping the code "simple"?
A complete live example is available here.
std::function is a type erasure type. Type erasure types are not suitable for deduction.
template<typename Derived, typename T>
using get_t = function<T(const Derived&)>;
get_t is an alias to a type erasure type. Ditto.
Create traits classes:
template<class T>
struct gettor_traits : std::false_type {};
this will tell you if T is a valid gettor, and if so what its input and output types are. Similarly for settor_traits.
So
template<class T, class Derived>
struct gettor_traits< std::function<T(Derived const&)> >:
std::true_type
{
using return_type = T;
using argument_type = Derived;
};
template<class T, class Derived>
struct gettor_traits< T(Derived::*)() >:
std::true_type
{
using return_type = T;
using argument_type = Derived;
};
etc.
Now we got back to the property ctor:
template<class Gettor,
std::enable_if_t< gettor_traits<Gettor>{}, int> =0,
class T = typename gettor_traits<Gettor>::return_value,
class Derived = typename gettor_traits<Gettor>::argument_type
>
property(
const string& name_,
Gettor get_
):
property_format{
typeid(T),
name_,
access_rights_t::NONE
},
get_f{caller<Derived, T>{get_}},
nullptr
{
}
where we use SFINAE to ensure that our Gettor passes muster, and the traits class to extract the types we care about.
There is going to be lots of work here. But it is write-once work.
My preferred syntax in these cases would be:
std::cout << (f->*p_i)();
and
(f->*p_i)(7);
where the property acts like a member function pointer, or even
(f->*p_i) = 7;
std::cout << (f->*p_i);
where the property transparently acts like a member variable pointer.
In both cases, through overload of ->*, and in the second case via returning a pseudo-reference from ->*.
At the end of this answer is a slightly different approach. I will begin with the general problem though.
The problem is &bar::get_i is a function pointer to a member function while your alias is creating a function object which needs the class as additional template parameter.
Some examples:
Non member function:
#include <functional>
void a(int i) {};
void f(std::function<void(int)> func)
{
}
int main()
{
f(&a);
return 0;
}
This works fine. Now if I change a into a struct:
#include <functional>
struct A
{
void a(int i) {};
};
void f(std::function<void(int)> func)
{
}
int main()
{
f(std::function<void(int)>(&A::a));
return 0;
}
this gets the error:
error: no matching function for call to std::function<void(int)>::function(void (A::*)(int))'
because the std::function object also need the base class (as you do with your alias declaration)
You need a std::function<void(A,int)>
You cannot make your example much better though.
A way to make it a "bit" more easier than your example would maybe be this approach using CRTP.
#include <functional>
template <typename Class>
struct funcPtr
{
template <typename type>
using fun = std::function<void(Class,type)>;
};
struct A : public funcPtr<A>
{
void a(int i) {};
};
void f(A::fun<int> func)
{
};
int main()
{
f(A::fun<int>(&A::a));
return 0;
}
And each your "derived" classes derives from a funcPtr class which "auto generates" the specific alias declaration.
I'm using the following compile-time 'trick' (based on ADL) to create a function that is only valid/defined/callable by classes in the same namespace.
namespace Family1
{
struct ModelA{};
struct ModelB{};
template<typename T>
bool is_in_Family1(T const& t)
{
return true;
}
};
namespace Family2
{
struct ModelC{};
template<typename T>
bool is_in_Family2(T const& t)
{
return true;
}
};
Family1::ModelA mA;
Family2::ModelC mC;
is_in_Family1(mA); // VALID
is_in_Family1(mC); // ERROR
Now, I'd like to use this principle (or something similar) in order to produce a specialization of Foo::Bar (below) for classes belonging to each of the namespaces e.g. Family1.
// I would like to specialize the method template Bar for classes in Family1
// namespace; and another specialization for classes in Family2 namespace
struct Foo
{
template<typename T>
void Bar( T& _T ){}
};
For ease of maintenance and the large number of classes in each namespace, if possible, I'd like to perform this check without naming all the classes in a namespace.
Your "trick" has one big problem. Try calling is_in_Family1(make_pair(Family1::ModelA(), Family2::ModelC()) and you will see that return true, because ADL will look into both the namespaces of ModelA and ModelC (because of pair<ModelA, ModelC>).
Ignoring that problem, with using your functions it is straight forward.
template<typename T> struct int_ { typedef int type; };
struct Foo
{
template<typename T,
typename int_<decltype(is_in_Family1(*(T*)0))>::type = 0
>
void Bar( T& t ){}
template<typename T,
typename int_<decltype(is_in_Family2(*(T*)0))>::type = 0
>
void Bar( T& t ){}
};
That calls Bar depending on whether it is in family2 or family1.
struct Foo
{
template<typename T,
typename int_<decltype(is_in_Family1(*(T*)0))>::type = 0
>
void Bar( T& t, long){}
template<typename T,
typename int_<decltype(is_in_Family2(*(T*)0))>::type = 0
>
void Bar( T& t, long){}
template<typename T>
void Bar( T& t, int) {}
template<typename T>
void Bar( T& t ) { return Bar(t, 0); }
};
That one has also a generic fallback. And your code had undefined behavior because you used a reserved name. Don't use _T.
The quickest way I found to do this is using Boost Type Traits' is_base_of<>
I tried to use inheritence with template specialization but that didn't work because inheritance is ignored when template specialization is used so you'd have to specialize for each model. The answer to Partial specialization for a parent of multiple classes explains the problem.
Using type traits works provided you make Family1::ModelA and Family::ModelB subclasses of Family1:Family1Type and Family2::ModelC a subclass of Family2::Family2Type :
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/type_traits/is_base_of.hpp>
namespace Family1{
struct Family1Type{};
struct ModelA :public Family1Type{};
struct ModelB :public Family1Type{};
template<typename T>
bool is_in_Family1(const T& t){
return boost::is_base_of<Family1::Family1Type,T>::value;
}
};
namespace Family2{
struct Family2Type{};
struct ModelC :public Family2Type{};
template<typename T>
bool is_in_Family2(const T& t){
return boost::is_base_of<Family2::Family2Type,T>::value;
}
};
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
Family1::ModelA mA;
Family2::ModelC mC;
std::cout << "mA is in Family1? " << is_in_Family1(mA) << std::endl;
std::cout << "mC is in Family2? " << is_in_Family2(mC) << std::endl;
//std::cout << "mC is in Family1? " << is_in_Family1(mC) << std::endl; //ERROR!
//std::cout << "mA is in Family2? " << is_in_Family2(mA) << std::endl; //ERROR!
return 0;
}
This results in the following output:
mA is in Family1? 1
mC is in Family2? 1
I don't think there is a way to declare Foo and specialize Foo::Bar<> in another namespace according to Specialization of 'template<class _Tp> struct std::less' in different namespace