I'm trying to implement boost::any like class:
struct any
{
private:
struct holderBase
{
virtual ~holderBase(){}
};
template<typename T>
struct holder : public holderBase
{
T content;
holder(const T& value) : content(value){}
holder(const holder<T>& other) : content(other.content){}
};
holderBase *hl;
public:
template<typename T>
any(const T& data = T()) { hl = new holder<T>(data); }
any(const any& other) { hl = other.hl; }
template<typename T>
T get()
{
if(holder<T>* p_hl = dynamic_cast<holder<T>*>(hl))
return p_hl->content;
else
throw std::runtime_error("std::runtime_error");
}
};
I use a holder class (inherited by holderBase) to store the data.
How can I modify the any::get() function (or even modify the whole code) so that it doesn't need a template parameter (the get() function)?
You could do it like this:
template<typename T>
T get(T *ptr);
Similar to the C time function, you would return the result, as well as store it in ptr.
Edit: You could also override the casting operator:
template<typename T>
operator T()
{
return get<T>();
}
Which will implicitly do what you want.
Stating the obvious: If you don't want to return 1 particular type to the user then it needs to be templated. There's nothing you can do about it.
Related
Given the following simple C++ class:
using namespace std;
template<class T1>
class ValueWrapper {
private:
T1 value_;
public:
ValueWrapper() {}
ValueWrapper(const T1& value) {
value_ = value;
}
ValueWrapper(const ValueWrapper<T1> &wrapper) {
value_ = wrapper.value_;
}
ValueWrapper& Set(const T1& value) {
value_ = value;
return *this;
}
T1 Get() const {
return value_;
}
};
I was trying to create a simple shared_ptr wrapper for that class (ultimately allowing the developer to use the class without the dereferencing operator if desired). While I've seen a few examples of wrapping a shared_ptr, I couldn't find any that also used a specialization for a templated class.
Using the class above, I created a ValueShared class which derives from shared_ptr:
template<class T1>
class ValueShared : public shared_ptr<T1> {
public:
ValueShared& operator =(const T1& rhs) {
// nothing to do in base
return *this;
}
};
Then, I created a custom make_shared_value function:
//
// TEMPLATE FUNCTION make_shared
template<class T1, class... Types> inline
ValueShared<T1> make_shared_value(Types&&... Arguments)
{ // make a shared_ptr
_Ref_count_obj<T1> *_Rx = new _Ref_count_obj<T1>(_STD forward<Types>(Arguments)...);
ValueShared<T1> _Ret;
_Ret._Resetp0(_Rx->_Getptr(), _Rx);
return (_Ret);
}
But, here's the problem code:
template<class T1, class ValueWrapper<T1>>
class ValueShared<ValueWrapper<T1>> : public shared_ptr<ValueWrapper<T1>>{
public:
ValueShared& operator =(const ValueWrapper<T1>& rhs) {
auto self = this->get();
self.Set(rhs->Get());
return *this;
}
};
I wanted to provide a specialization of the equals operator here that was specialized to the ValueWrapper class (so that it would Get/Set the value from the right hand side value).
I've tried a few things, but the current error is:
error C2943: 'ValueWrapper<T1>' : template-class-id redefined
as a type argument of a template
Maybe this isn't the proper approach, or maybe it's not possible?
Following should remove your error:
template<class T1>
class ValueShared<ValueWrapper<T1>> : public shared_ptr<ValueWrapper<T1>> {
public:
ValueShared& operator =(const ValueWrapper<T1>& rhs)
{
auto self = this->get();
self->Set(rhs.Get());
return *this;
}
};
I accept onathan Wakely's comment as answer. Thank you! The below is original post.
[original post]
Have an idea about making set and get methods in a class automatically as shown below
template<class T>
class Has
{
public:
template<class U>
const U& get() const;
template<>
const T& get<T>() const
{
return m_t;
}
template<class U>
void set(const U& t);
template<>
void set<T>(const T& t)
{
m_t = t;
}
private:
T m_t;
};
An example
class Door {};
class Window {};
class House
: public Has<Door>
, public Has<Window>
{};
House house;
// set
house.set(Door());
house.set(Window());
// get
const Door& door = house.get<Door>();
const Window& window = house.get<Window>();
If the components' types are different and their type names are readable, the code shown above is fine. But if the type name is not readable, such as the area of the house has a type double, I'd like to use
house.get<Area>(); // or
house.get<AREA>(); // where the template argument can be a const integer
other than
house.get<double>();
And if there are two components with double type, such as area and volume, how to deal with the complex? Thanks a lot!
There is a way to wrap the double as a new type like
template<class T>
class Wrap
{
public:
Wrap(const T& value = T())
: m_value
{}
operator T()
{
return m_value;
}
private:
T m_value;
};
class Area
: public Wrap<double>
{};
To doing this, is there any performance affection? Thanks.
Following jweyrich's suggestion, add the following code
template<class Name, class T>
class With
{
public:
template<class U>
const U& get() const;
template<>
const T& get<Name>() const
{
return m_t;
}
template<class U>
void set(const U& t);
template<>
void set<Name>(const T& t)
{
m_t = t;
}
private:
T m_t;
};
I think this work perfectly.
An example
class Door {};
class Window {};
class Area {}; // Empty, just a name holder
class Volume {}; // Another a name holder
class House
: public Has<Door>
, public Has<Window>
, public With<Area, double>
, public With<Volume, double>
{};
House house;
// set
house.set(Door());
house.set(Window());
house.set<Area>(3000);
house.set<Volume>(30000);
// get
const Door& door = house.get<Door>();
const Window& window = house.get<Window>();
double area = house.get<Area>();
double volume = house.get<Volume>();
Any one know for the template inheritance, is there any performance reduction? In my opinion, I think there is not. Thanks a lot!
I have a class with one std::unique_ptr as class member. I was wondering, how to correctly define the copy constructor, since I'm getting the following compiler error message: error C2248: std::unique_ptr<_Ty>::unique_ptr : cannot access private member declared in class 'std::unique_ptr<_Ty>. My class design looks something like:
template <typename T>
class Foo{
public:
Foo(){};
Foo( Bar<T> *, int );
Foo( const Foo<T> & );
~Foo(){};
void swap( Foo<T> & );
Foo<T> operator = ( Foo<T> );
private:
std::unique_ptr<Bar> m_ptrBar;
int m_Param1;
};
template < typename T >
Foo<T>::Foo( const Foo<T> & refFoo )
:m_ptrBar(refFoo.m_ptrBar),
m_Param1(refFoo.m_Param1)
{
// error here!
}
template < typename T >
void Foo<T>::swap( Foo<T> & refFoo ){
using std::swap;
swap(m_ptrBar, refFoo.m_ptrBar);
swap(m_Param1, refFoo.m_Param1);
}
template < typename T >
Foo<T> Foo<T>::operator = ( Foo<T> Elem ){
Elem.swap(*this);
return (*this);
}
Assuming the goal is to copy-construct the uniquely-owned Bar,
template < typename T >
Foo<T>::Foo( const Foo<T> & refFoo )
: m_ptrBar(refFoo.m_ptrBar ? new Bar(*refFoo.m_ptrBar) : nullptr),
m_Param1(refFoo.m_Param1)
{
}
Unique_ptr documentation:
Stores a pointer to an owned object. The object is owned by no other unique_ptr.
The object is destroyed when the unique_ptr is destroyed.
You cant copy it because two objects can't own it.
Try switching to a std::shared_ptr.
EDIT I should point out that this would make both objects have a pointer to that same object. If you want to copy the uniquely owned object Cubbi's solution is the correct one.
A possibility is to create a new clone_ptr type for this.
Below is a rudimentary example of a clone_ptr that invokes the correct copy constructor (and destructor) of a derived object. This is done here by creating a "type erasure" helper when the clone_ptr is created.
Other implementations may be found on the Internet.
#include <memory>
namespace clone_ptr_detail
{
template <class T>
class clone_ptr_helper_base
{
public:
virtual ~clone_ptr_helper_base() {}
virtual T* clone(const T* source) const = 0;
virtual void destroy(const T* p) const = 0;
};
template <class T, class U>
class clone_ptr_helper: public clone_ptr_helper_base<T>
{
public:
virtual T* clone(const T* source) const
{
return new U(static_cast<const U&>(*source));
}
virtual void destroy(const T* p) const
{
delete static_cast<const U*>(p);
}
};
}
template <class T>
class clone_ptr
{
T* ptr;
std::shared_ptr<clone_ptr_detail::clone_ptr_helper_base<T>> ptr_helper;
public:
template <class U>
explicit clone_ptr(U* p): ptr(p), ptr_helper(new clone_ptr_detail::clone_ptr_helper<T, U>()) {}
clone_ptr(const clone_ptr& other): ptr(other.ptr_helper->clone(other.ptr)), ptr_helper(other.ptr_helper) {}
clone_ptr& operator=(clone_ptr rhv)
{
swap(rhv);
return *this;
}
~clone_ptr()
{
ptr_helper->destroy(ptr);
}
T* get() const { /*error checking here*/ return ptr; }
T& operator* () const { return *get(); }
T* operator-> () const { return get(); }
void swap(clone_ptr& other)
{
std::swap(ptr, other.ptr);
ptr_helper.swap(other.ptr_helper);
}
};
See usage example: http://ideone.com/LnWa3
(But perhaps you don't really need to copy your objects, and might rather explore the possibilities of move semantics. For example, you can have a vector<unique_ptr<T>>, as long as you don't use functions that copy the contents.)
I've declared a template class MyContainer as bellow, then created an instance of it of type DataType1. The DataType1 class provides a friend function "DataSpecificComparison" which is used by std::sort to compare DataType1 objects. The program compiled and sorted correctly.
I then defined a class called DataType2, gave it a friend implementation of "DataSpecificComparison" and used it to create another instance of MyContainer.
I am now unable to compile the program as a "C2914: 'std::sort' : cannot deduce template argument as function argument is ambiguous" compile time error is reported.
How can a developer specify that the DataSpecificComparison binary predicate is to take arguments of template type T*? Or is there another way around this issue?
template <class T>
class MyContainer
{
private:
vector<T*> m_vMyContainerObjects;
....
public:
....
void SortMyContainerObjects()
{
std::sort(m_vMyContainerObjects.begin(), m_vMyContainerObjects.end(), DataSpecificComparison)
}
}
class DataType1
{
....
friend bool DataSpecificComparison(const DataType1 * lhs, const DataType1 * rhs)
}
class DataType2
{
....
friend bool DataSpecificComparison(const DataType2* lhs, const DataType2* rhs)
}
You can use a temporary local function pointer variable of the required type to select the correct overload of DataSpecificComparison:
void SortMyContainerObjects()
{
typedef bool (*comparer_t)(const T*, const T*);
comparer_t cmp = &DataSpecificComparison;
std::sort(m_vMyContainerObjects.begin(), m_vMyContainerObjects.end(), cmp);
}
Here the compiler can deduce that you want to use the DataSpecificComparison overload that matches the comparer_t type, which resolves the ambiguity.
sth already gave a correct answer, but there's also a direct alternative based on the same principle:
void SortMyContainerObjects()
{
std::sort(m_vMyContainerObjects.begin(), m_vMyContainerObjects.end(),
static_cast<bool (*comparer_t)(const T*, const T*)>(&DataSpecificComparison));
}
This uses essentially the same mechanism. The cast forces overload resolution to happen before the Template Argument Deduction for std::sort.
template<typename T>
struct DataSpecificComp : public binary_function<T, T, bool>
{
public:
bool operator()(const T* lhs, const T* rhs)
{
return *lhs < *rhs;
}
};
call the sort function as shown below:
sort(vi.begin(), vi.end(), DataSpecificComp<int>());
I'd prefer something along the following lines: by default it compares objects with less_than (so you wouldn't have to remember to provide a function with a funny name), and there's an overload that allows giving your own comparison functor (again, value-based):
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <functional>
template <class T, class Func>
struct indirect_binary_call_type: public std::binary_function<const T*, const T*, bool>
{
Func f;
indirect_binary_call_type(Func f): f(f) {}
bool operator()(const T* a, const T* b) const
{
return f(*a, *b);
}
};
template <class T, class Func>
indirect_binary_call_type<T, Func> indirect_binary_call(Func f)
{
return indirect_binary_call_type<T, Func>(f);
}
template <class T>
class MyContainer
{
private:
std::vector<T*> m_vMyContainerObjects;
public:
void Sort()
{
Sort(std::less<T>());
}
template <class Func>
void Sort(Func f )
{
std::sort(m_vMyContainerObjects.begin(), m_vMyContainerObjects.end(), indirect_binary_call<T>(f));
}
};
int main()
{
MyContainer<int> m;
m.Sort();
m.Sort(std::greater<int>());
}
Did you try defining DataSpecificComparison as template with bunch of specializations and giving it the type?
template<T>
bool DataSpecificComparison(const T* t1, const T* t2)
{
// something non compilable here
}
template<> bool DataSpecificComparison<Data1>(const Data1* t1, const Data1* t2)
{
// return *t1 < *t2;
}
....
void SortMyContainerObjects()
{
std::sort(m_vMyContainerObjects.begin(), m_vMyContainerObjects.end(), DataSpecificComparison<T>)
}
....
Templating DataSpecificComparison should work. You can also specifically call the proper std::sort template, but it's a bit cumbersome:
template <class T>
class MyContainer
{
private:
vector<T*> m_vMyContainerObjects;
typedef bool (*compsT)(T, T);
public:
....
void SortMyContainerObjects()
{
std::sort<std::vector<T*>::iterator, compsT>(m_vMyContainerObjects.begin(), m_vMyContainerObjects.end(), DataSpecificComparison);
}
}
If I want to create a function template, where the template parameter isn't used in the argument list, I can do it thusly:
template<T>
T myFunction()
{
//return some T
}
But the invocation must specify the 'T' to use, as the compiler doesn't know how to work it out.
myFunction<int>();
But, suppose I wanted to do something similar, but for the '[]' operator.
template
T SomeObject::operator [ unsigned int ]
{
//Return some T
}
Is there any way to invoke this operator?
This doesn't appear valid:
SomeObject a;
a<int>[3];
This should work:
class C
{
public:
template <class T>
T operator[](int n)
{
return T();
}
};
void foo()
{
C c;
int x = c.operator[]<int>(0);
}
But it's of no real value because you'd always have to specify the type, and so it looks like a very ugly function call - the point of an operator overload is to look like an operator invocation.
Boost.Program_options uses this neat syntax:
int& i = a["option"].as<int>();
Which is achieved with something like this:
class variable_value
{
public:
variable_value(const boost::any& value) : m_value(value) {}
template<class T>
const T& as() const {
return boost::any_cast<const T&>(m_value);
}
template<class T>
T& as() {
return boost::any_cast<T&>(m_value);
}
private:
boost::any m_value;
};
class variables_map
{
public:
const variable_value& operator[](const std::string& name) const
{
return m_variables[name];
}
variable_value& operator[](const std::string& name)
{
return m_variables[name];
}
private:
std::map<std::string, variable_value> m_variables;
};
You could adapt this idea to suit your own needs.
Like with any operator, the function name is operator#, so:
a.operator[]<int>(3);
You can use a.operator[]<int>(1);
But why do you want this?
This may not be an optimal solution, but you could directly call the operator as such:
a.operator[](3);
I tried this in g++ with the following test:
class MyClass {
public:
template<class T>
T operator[](unsigned int) {
// do something
return T();
}
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
MyClass test;
test.operator[]<int>(0);
//test<int>[0]; // doesn't compile, as you mentioned
return 0;
}
If you need to define operator[] then probably define the template at the class level. Something like this:
template<class T>
class C
{
public:
T operator[](int n)
{
return T();
}
};
int main()
{
C<int> c;
int x = c[0];
return 0;
}
I have a hard time coming up with an example where this would be needed (couldn't you just overload the operator instead?), but here's my thoughts anyway:
Since you cannot use the infix operator syntax with templatized operators, you might want to do the template instantiation before you call the operator. A proxy might be a way to do this.
class some_class {
private:
template<class T> class proxy {
some_class* that_;
public:
proxy(some_class* that) : that_(that) {}
T& operator[](std::size_type idx) {return that->get<T>(idx);}
};
template<class T> class const_proxy {
some_class* that_;
public:
proxy(const some_class* that) : that_(that) {}
const T& operator[](std::size_type idx) const {return that->get<T>(idx);}
};
template< typename T > proxy<T> get_array() {return proxy<T>(this);}
template< typename T > const_proxy<T> get_array() const {return proxy<T>(this);}
template< typename T > T& get(std::size_t idx) {/* whatever */}
template< typename T > const T& get(std::size_t idx) const {/* whatever */}
};
// This is a lousy use case.
// Did I already say I have a hard time imagining how to use this?
template< typename T >
void f(some_class& some_object, sid::size_t idx)
{
T& = some_object.get_array<T>()[idx];
}