Consistent template types - c++

Problem
Consider the following class
template <typename T>
struct A
{
T x;
};
Now, another class is templated like so:
template <typename T, typename U>
class B
{
protected:
std::vector<U> arr;
public:
T get_x(unsigned int p) { return arr[p].x; }
};
I would like to access the field A<T>::x from within B<T, A<T>>::get_x() and return it unaltered (i.e., keep its type as T). My poor knowledge of templating says that this requires knowing the type andof T it should be one of the template parameters of class B. However, that makes it possible to declare something inconsistent, like B<int, A<double>>, and in general sounds like an unnecessary repetition.
Questions
Is what I wrote an example of bad programming practice? How should this be written?
Is there a possibility of inferring the type T of A<T>::x and avoid two template types? It feels like a repetition, so I am not sure if there is a God-fearing, standard-abiding solution out there or not.
For what it is worth, I am using GCC 4.6.2 with -std=c++0x.

I would suggest an approach adopted by the Standard Library. Define a nested type.
template <typename T>
struct A
{
typedef T value_type; //this is nested type to be used by B
T x;
};
//this is another class added by me, just to demonstrate the genericity
template <typename T>
struct C
{
typedef T value_type; //this is nested type to be used by B
T x;
};
template <typename T>
class B
{
typedef typename T::value_type value_type; //get the nested type
protected:
std::vector<T> arr;
public:
value_type get_x(unsigned int p) { return arr[p].x; }
//^^^^^^^^^ note this
};
Usage:
B<A<int>> ba; //'>>' if C++11, otherwise use '> >' (separate them by space)
B<C<double>> bc; //works for C class template as well

Related

How to disable pointers as template typenames

I would like to make it impossible to instantiate the following class when a pointer is used as the template typename:
template <typename T>
class MyClass{
//...
T payload;
//...
};
So
MyClass<int> is fine but
MyClass<int*> is not.
It would be wonderful if I can prohibit the instantiation of the class with a struct that has a pointer in it.
There are a couple ways you can do this. You can use SFINAE to constrain the template to non-pointer types like
template <typename T, std::enable_if_t<!std::is_pointer_v<T>, bool> = true>
class MyClass{
//...
T payload;
//...
};
But this can give some pretty hard to understand compiler errors. Using a static_assert you can add your own custom error message like
template <typename T>
class MyClass {
//...
static_assert(!std::is_pointer_v<T>, "MyClass<T> requires T to be a non pointer type");
T payload;
// ...
};
You can use static_assert + std::is_pointer_v:
template <typename T>
class MyClass {
static_assert(!std::is_pointer_v<T>);
// ...
};
If you don't have C++11 to use std::is_pointer and static_assert, you can define a specialization and leave it undefined:
template <typename T>
class MyClass {
};
template<class T>
class MyClass<T*>; // Requires non-pointer types
template<class T>
class MyClass<T* const>; // Requires non-pointer types
template<class T>
class MyClass<T* const volatile>; // Requires non-pointer types
template<class T>
class MyClass<T* volatile>; // Requires non-pointer types
int main() {
MyClass<int> mc1; // Works fine
MyClass<int*> mc2; // Error
}
It would be wonderful if I can prohibit the instantiation of the class with a struct that has a pointer in it.
This is not possible in C++.
Note that smart pointers are struct that have pointers in them; std::is_pointer does not recognise them so iif you want to prohibit them, you need to provide a separate meta-function (not very hard).

How to specialize a template-class with doubles?

I write a template class dependent on a given type and variadic types, like so:
template<typename ConstType,typename...Inputs>
class ConstantTensor;
Then I write another class, which is generally defined in this way (assume wrong_type whatever type you want, but which is different from the following specialization ):
template<typename T>
class X{
public:
using type=wrong_type;
}
And I also have a specialization of this kind:
template<typename ConstType,typename...Inputs>
class X< ConstantTensor< ConstType ,Inputs...>>
{
public:
using type=right_type;
}
My problem is that, if I define the type ConstantTensor<ConstType,double> and then I want to use X<ConstantTensor<ConstType,double>>::type, the general case is called and not the specialization. So I obtain wrong_type instead of right_type. I guess it has to deal with the double type...Could you explain me why and how can I solve this issue? Thank you in advance.
EDIT:
Here a snippet of code, I hope it works:
class Scalar
{};
template<typename ConstType,typename...Inputs>
class ConstantTensor
{
public:
constexpr ConstantTensor(const Inputs&...inputs)
{}
};
template<typename ConstType,typename...Inputs>
constexpr auto Constant(const Inputs&...inputs)
{return ConstantTensor<ConstType,Inputs...>(inputs...);}
template<typename T>
class X{
public:
using type=int;
};
template<typename ConstType,typename...Inputs>
class X<ConstantTensor<ConstType,Inputs...>>{
public:
using type=char;
};
int main()
{
constexpr auto delta=Constant<Scalar>(2.0);
using type= X<decltype(delta)>::type; // this is int not char
}
The problem is that
constexpr auto delta=Constant<Scalar>(2.0);
is a constexpr variable; so it's also const.
So decltype(delta) isn't ConstantTensor<Scalar> but is a ConstantTensor<Scalar> const.
You can verify adding const in partial specialization declaration
template<typename ConstType,typename...Inputs>
class X<ConstantTensor<ConstType,Inputs...> const>{ // <-- added const
public:
using type=char;
};
Now you get that type is char.
-- EDIT --
The OP asks
Is there a short/elegant way to deal with both cases, const and non const, without duplicating the code?
I don't know if it's elegant, but it seems to me short enough: you can use a sort of self-inheritance adding the following partial specialization.
template <typename T>
class X<T const> : public X<T>
{ };
So X<ConstantTensor<Scalar> const> inherit from X<ConstantTensor<Scalar>>.

A recursive template type for a container / typename forwarding

Is there any way to get a recursive template type? I have a container for which I want to specify an underlying storage strategy. The inner template must however use the outer template's type, so it causes a loop in the type definition -- which isn't possible to specify.
About what I want:
template<typename C>
struct inner {
C * object[16];
};
template<typename T, typename Inner>
struct container {
T value;
Inner<container> holder;
};
C++11 solutions are fine (though I'm still on gcc 4.6.3).
You need to tell the compiler that Inner is a templated class:
template<typename T, template<typename> class Inner>
struct container {
T value;
Inner<container> holder;
};
I'm not sure why you're adding the Inner type template parameter, since you're defining holder to be a type based on Container and inner, both of which are available at the point you're declaring holder.
Are you planning on using any type other than struct inner as a template param to Container? If not, the following simplified code compiled and ran for me in VS2010 :
#include <vector>
#include <stdio.h>
template <typename C>
struct inner{
C * objects[16];
bool hasobj;
inner():hasobj(false){}
};
template <typename T>
class Container {
inner<Container> holder;
T value;
public:
Container(const T& valueP){
value = valueP;
}
void AddChild(Container* rhs){
holder.objects[0] = rhs; //Always using first location, just for example
holder.hasobj = true;
}
void PrintStuff()const{
if(holder.hasobj){
holder.objects[0]->PrintStuff();
}
printf("VAL IS %d\n", value);
}
};
int main(){
Container<int> c(10);
Container<int> c1(20);
c1.AddChild(&c);
c1.PrintStuff();
}
Basically, this is assuming that the container is always defining holder in terms of inner, which helps get rid of the extra template parameter, when defining Container. Hope this helps :)
arun

How to do a partial template specialization on a nested type?

I have a templated class Converter, and I'd like to do a partial specialization. The tricky part is I'd like to specialize it to MyFoo::Vec where MyFoo again can be specialized as a template parameter. If that sounds confusing, maybe the code itself makes it clearer:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template<class To>
struct Converter {
Converter(int from, To& to) {
to = To(from);
}
};
template<class T>
struct Foo {
typedef std::vector<T> Vec;
Vec vec;
};
// Template specialization: Convert from 'From' to 'MyFoo::Vec':
template<class MyFoo>
struct Converter<typename MyFoo::Vec > { // Error: template parameters not
// used in partial specialization
Converter(int from, typename MyFoo::Vec& to) {
to.push_back(typename MyFoo::Vec::value_type(from));
}
};
int main() {
Foo<float> myfoo;
Converter<Foo<float> > converter(2, myfoo.vec);
}
This is just a mini example derived from my actual code. This question is not about how useful such a converter is; I'm just interested in getting the syntax right given that I need such a converter and its specialization.
It cannot be done directly. Consider that it is impossible to go from the nested type to the enclosing type for two reasons: first, the mapping might not be unique (multiple Foo might have the same nested Vec type) and even if it was the compiler would have to test all existing types (i.e. it cannot infer from the instantiation).
What you want to do can actually be done with SFINAE (untested code, you can read more here):
template <typename T, typename V = void>
struct Converter {}; // Default implementation
template <typename T>
struct Converter<T, T::Vec> {}; // specific if has nested Vec

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.