templated variable - c++

I currently have the following non templated code:
class Vector{
public:
double data[3];
};
static Vector *myVariable;
void func() {
myVariable->data[0] = 0.;
}
int main() {
myVariable = new Vector();
func();
}
I then want to template the dimension :
template<int DIM> class Vector{
public:
double data[DIM];
};
static Vector<3>* myVariable;
void func() {
myVariable->data[0] = 0.;
}
int main() {
myVariable = new Vector<3>();
func();
}
But I finally want to template my variable as well, with the dimension :
template<int DIM> class Vector{
public:
double data[DIM];
};
template<int DIM> static Vector<DIM> *myVariable;
void func() {
myVariable->data[0] = 0.;
// or perform any other operation on myVariable
}
int main() {
int dim = 3;
if (dim==3)
myVariable = new Vector<3>();
else
myVariable = new Vector<4>();
func();
}
However, this last version of the code produces an error : this static variable cannot be templated ("C2998: Vector *myVariable cannot be a template definition").
How could I possibly correct this error without a complete redesign (like inheriting the templated Vector class from a non templated class, which would require more expensive calls to virtual methods , or manually creating several myVariables of different dimensions) ? Maybe I'm just tired and don't see an obvious answer :s
Edit: Note that this code is a minimal working code to show the error, but my actual implementation templates the dimension for a full computational geometry class, so I cannot just replace Vector by an array. I see that there doesn't seem to be a solution to my problem.
Thanks!

It's been a while, but I've used constants in the template declaration before. I eventually went another direction with what I was working on, so I don't know if it'll ultimately be your solution either. I think the problem here is that any templated variable must know its template argument at compile time.
In your example, Vector<3> and Vector<4> are different types, and cannot be assigned to the same variable. That's why template<int DIM> static Vector<DIM> *myVariable doesn't make any sense; it doesn't have a discernible type.

template<int DIM> static Vector<DIM> *myVariable;
This is not allowed by the language specification. End of the story.
And since I don't understand the purpose of your code, or what you want to achieve, I cannot suggest any better alternative than simply suggesting you to try using std::vector<T>. It's also because I don't know how much am I allowed to redesign your code, and the way you use it, to make your code work.

You can use std::array to template-ize the dimension but you can't cast the pointer of one dimension to the pointer of another.

I think I found!
template<int DIM> class Vector{
public:
double data[DIM];
};
static void *myVariable;
template<int DIM>
void func() {
((Vector<DIM>*)myVariable)->data[0] = 0.;
// or perform any other operation on myVariable
}
int main() {
int dim = 3;
if (dim==3)
{
myVariable = (void*) new Vector<3>();
func<3>();
}
else
{
myVariable = (void*) new Vector<4>();
func<4>();
}
}

Vector<3> and Vector<4> are entirely different types and have no formal relation to one another. The fact that they are superficially similar from your point of view doesn't matter.
If you want them to be equivalent up to a certain type, we have a name for that: interfaces
template <typename Scalar = float>
class BasicVector {
public:
typedef Scalar * iterator;
virtual ~ BasicVector () {}
virtual size_t size () const = 0;
virtual iterator begin () = 0;
virtual iterator end () = 0;
};
template <unsigned N, typename Scalar = float>
class Vector : public BasicVector <Scalar> {
Scalar m_elements [N];
public:
using Scalar :: iterator;
size_t size () const {return N;}
iterator begin () {return m_elements;}
iterator end () {return m_elements + N;}
};
int main () {
BasicVector * a;
a = new Vector <3>;
a = new Vector <4>;
}

Related

Virtually turn vector of struct into vector of struct members

I have a function that takes a vector-like input. To simplify things, let's use this print_in_order function:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template <typename vectorlike>
void print_in_order(std::vector<int> const & order,
vectorlike const & printme) {
for (int i : order)
std::cout << printme[i] << std::endl;
}
int main() {
std::vector<int> printme = {100, 200, 300};
std::vector<int> order = {2,0,1};
print_in_order(order, printme);
}
Now I have a vector<Elem> and want to print a single integer member, Elem.a, for each Elem in the vector. I could do this by creating a new vector<int> (copying a for all Elems) and pass this to the print function - however, I feel like there must be a way to pass a "virtual" vector that, when operator[] is used on it, returns this only the member a. Note that I don't want to change the print_in_order function to access the member, it should remain general.
Is this possible, maybe with a lambda expression?
Full code below.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct Elem {
int a,b;
Elem(int a, int b) : a(a),b(b) {}
};
template <typename vectorlike>
void print_in_order(std::vector<int> const & order,
vectorlike const & printme) {
for (int i : order)
std::cout << printme[i] << std::endl;
}
int main() {
std::vector<Elem> printme = {Elem(1,100), Elem(2,200), Elem(3,300)};
std::vector<int> order = {2,0,1};
// how to do this?
virtual_vector X(printme) // behaves like a std::vector<Elem.a>
print_in_order(order, X);
}
It's not really possible to directly do what you want. Instead you might want to take a hint from the standard algorithm library, for example std::for_each where you take an extra argument that is a function-like object that you call for each element. Then you could easily pass a lambda function that prints only the wanted element.
Perhaps something like
template<typename vectorlike, typename functionlike>
void print_in_order(std::vector<int> const & order,
vectorlike const & printme,
functionlike func) {
for (int i : order)
func(printme[i]);
}
Then call it like
print_in_order(order, printme, [](Elem const& elem) {
std::cout << elem.a;
});
Since C++ have function overloading you can still keep the old print_in_order function for plain vectors.
Using member pointers you can implement a proxy type that will allow you view a container of objects by substituting each object by one of it's members (see pointer to data member) or by one of it's getters (see pointer to member function). The first solution addresses only data members, the second accounts for both.
The container will necessarily need to know which container to use and which member to map, which will be provided at construction. The type of a pointer to member depends on the type of that member so it will have to be considered as an additional template argument.
template<class Container, class MemberPtr>
class virtual_vector
{
public:
virtual_vector(const Container & p_container, MemberPtr p_member_ptr) :
m_container(&p_container),
m_member(p_member_ptr)
{}
private:
const Container * m_container;
MemberPtr m_member;
};
Next, implement the operator[] operator, since you mentioned that it's how you wanted to access your elements. The syntax for dereferencing a member pointer can be surprising at first.
template<class Container, class MemberPtr>
class virtual_vector
{
public:
virtual_vector(const Container & p_container, MemberPtr p_member_ptr) :
m_container(&p_container),
m_member(p_member_ptr)
{}
// Dispatch to the right get method
auto operator[](const size_t p_index) const
{
return (*m_container)[p_index].*m_member;
}
private:
const Container * m_container;
MemberPtr m_member;
};
To use this implementation, you would write something like this :
int main() {
std::vector<Elem> printme = { Elem(1,100), Elem(2,200), Elem(3,300) };
std::vector<int> order = { 2,0,1 };
virtual_vector<decltype(printme), decltype(&Elem::a)> X(printme, &Elem::a);
print_in_order(order, X);
}
This is a bit cumbersome since there is no template argument deduction happening. So lets add a free function to deduce the template arguments.
template<class Container, class MemberPtr>
virtual_vector<Container, MemberPtr>
make_virtual_vector(const Container & p_container, MemberPtr p_member_ptr)
{
return{ p_container, p_member_ptr };
}
The usage becomes :
int main() {
std::vector<Elem> printme = { Elem(1,100), Elem(2,200), Elem(3,300) };
std::vector<int> order = { 2,0,1 };
auto X = make_virtual_vector(printme, &Elem::a);
print_in_order(order, X);
}
If you want to support member functions, it's a little bit more complicated. First, the syntax to dereference a data member pointer is slightly different from calling a function member pointer. You have to implement two versions of the operator[] and enable the correct one based on the member pointer type. Luckily the standard provides std::enable_if and std::is_member_function_pointer (both in the <type_trait> header) which allow us to do just that. The member function pointer requires you to specify the arguments to pass to the function (non in this case) and an extra set of parentheses around the expression that would evaluate to the function to call (everything before the list of arguments).
template<class Container, class MemberPtr>
class virtual_vector
{
public:
virtual_vector(const Container & p_container, MemberPtr p_member_ptr) :
m_container(&p_container),
m_member(p_member_ptr)
{}
// For mapping to a method
template<class T = MemberPtr>
auto operator[](std::enable_if_t<std::is_member_function_pointer<T>::value == true, const size_t> p_index) const
{
return ((*m_container)[p_index].*m_member)();
}
// For mapping to a member
template<class T = MemberPtr>
auto operator[](std::enable_if_t<std::is_member_function_pointer<T>::value == false, const size_t> p_index) const
{
return (*m_container)[p_index].*m_member;
}
private:
const Container * m_container;
MemberPtr m_member;
};
To test this, I've added a getter to the Elem class, for illustrative purposes.
struct Elem {
int a, b;
int foo() const { return a; }
Elem(int a, int b) : a(a), b(b) {}
};
And here is how it would be used :
int main() {
std::vector<Elem> printme = { Elem(1,100), Elem(2,200), Elem(3,300) };
std::vector<int> order = { 2,0,1 };
{ // print member
auto X = make_virtual_vector(printme, &Elem::a);
print_in_order(order, X);
}
{ // print method
auto X = make_virtual_vector(printme, &Elem::foo);
print_in_order(order, X);
}
}
You've got a choice of two data structures
struct Employee
{
std::string name;
double salary;
long payrollid;
};
std::vector<Employee> employees;
Or alternatively
struct Employees
{
std::vector<std::string> names;
std::vector<double> salaries;
std::vector<long> payrollids;
};
C++ is designed with the first option as the default. Other languages such as Javascript tend to encourage the second option.
If you want to find mean salary, option 2 is more convenient. If you want to sort the employees by salary, option 1 is easier to work with.
However you can use lamdas to partially interconvert between the two. The lambda is a trivial little function which takes an Employee and returns a salary for him - so effectively providing a flat vector of doubles we can take the mean of - or takes an index and an Employees and returns an employee, doing a little bit of trivial data reformatting.
template<class F>
struct index_fake_t{
F f;
decltype(auto) operator[](std::size_t i)const{
return f(i);
}
};
template<class F>
index_fake_t<F> index_fake( F f ){
return{std::move(f)};
}
template<class F>
auto reindexer(F f){
return [f=std::move(f)](auto&& v)mutable{
return index_fake([f=std::move(f),&v](auto i)->decltype(auto){
return v[f(i)];
});
};
}
template<class F>
auto indexer_mapper(F f){
return [f=std::move(f)](auto&& v)mutable{
return index_fake([f=std::move(f),&v](auto i)->decltype(auto){
return f(v[i]);
});
};
}
Now, print in order can be rewritten as:
template <typename vectorlike>
void print(vectorlike const & printme) {
for (auto&& x:printme)
std::cout << x << std::endl;
}
template <typename vectorlike>
void print_in_order(std::vector<int> const& reorder, vectorlike const & printme) {
print(reindexer([&](auto i){return reorder[i];})(printme));
}
and printing .a as:
print_in_order( reorder, indexer_mapper([](auto&&x){return x.a;})(printme) );
there may be some typos.

Passing function to template object when initializing template in C++

I'm trying to write an implementation for hash map, I'm not allowed to use anything from stdlib except for iostream, string and cassert.
It needs to be generic, so the values that populate the buckets can be of any type. I need templates for this, but can't manage to pass the hash function in any way. This would be the header file:
template<typename Value, typename hashFunction>
class hashTable{
public:
hashTable(int size){
//Creates an empty vector of size on the table
}
define(Value v){
loads value in Vector[hashFunction(v)];
}
...
private:
Vector with all the elements
}
Note: I guess I don't need templates for the keys, do I?
I can't define the hash function inside my class because I'd have to make one that works with all types (string to int, int to int, double to int, etc). So I guess the only solution is to pass the function as argument in my main. This would be the main.
int hashF(int v){return v}
int main(){
hashTable<int,int,hashF> table(5);
}
But this doesn't work, g++ tells me "expected type but got hashF". I guess I could pass a pointer to a function, but that seems like a hack rather than a real solution. Is there a better way?
template<typename Value, int(*fun)(Value)>
class hashTable {
std::vector<Value> v;
public:
hashTable(std::size_t size) : v(size) { }
void define(Value &&val) { v[fun(val)] = val; }
};
Live Demo
Non function pointer way:
template<typename Value, typename F>
class hashTable {
std::vector<Value> v;
F fun;
public:
hashTable(std::size_t size, F fun_) : v(size), fun(fun_) { }
void define(Value &&val) { v[fun(val)] = val; }
};
Live Demo
Managed to get it working with Neil's advice. My hash.h:
template<typename C, typename D, typename H>
class Tabla {
public:
Tabla(int s){
cout << hashF(3) << endl;
size=s;
}
private:
H hashF;
int size;
};
My hash.cpp
struct KeyHash {
unsigned long operator()(const int& k) const
{
return k % 10;
}
};
int main(){
Tabla<int,int,KeyHash> tab(3);
return 0;
}
This example is just to show I'm able to use the function inside the template, then I'd have to code the define and delete functions that use that KeyHash.
Dunno why I have to wrap it like this, but it works. Found the specifics of it here

How to return two-dimensional arrays in C++

I am trying to implement a Matrix4x4 class for my port of 3D Engine that I had made earlier. Here is what I have so far in my header file:
#ifndef MAT4_H
#define MAT4_H
class Matrix4
{
public:
Matrix4() {}
float[4][4] getMatrix() { return m; }
//...
//other matrix related methods are omitted
//...
private:
float m[4][4];
};
#endif
But the method that is supposed to return the two-dimensional array causes this error:
src/Matrix4.h:13:10: error: expected unqualified-id before '[' token
float[4][4] getMatrix() { return m; }
^
I am sorry if this question already has an answer, but the answers that I found on this site were usually about returning pointers instead of an array. Hope you can help, thanks.
I would suggest to use std::array. But using it directly in code, as multi array, is a bit ugly. So I'd suggest an alias, defined as:
#include <array>
namespace details
{
template<typename T, std::size_t D, std::size_t ... Ds>
struct make_multi_array
: make_multi_array<typename make_multi_array<T,Ds...>::type, D> {};
template<typename T, std::size_t D>
struct make_multi_array<T,D> { using type = std::array<T, D>; };
}
template<typename T, std::size_t D, std::size_t ... Ds>
using multi_array = typename details::make_multi_array<T,D,Ds...>::type;
Then use it as:
public:
multi_array<float,4,4> getMatrix() { return m; }
private:
multi_array<float,4,4> m;
You could use the alias in other places as well, such as:
//same as std::array<int,10>
//similar to int x[10]
multi_array<int,10> x;
//same as std::array<std::array<int,20>,10>
//similar to int y[10][20]
multi_array<int,10,20> y;
//same as std::array<std::array<std::array<int,30>,20>,10>
//similar to int z[10][20][30]
multi_array<int,10,20,30> z;
Hope that helps.
Passing an array in either C or C++ is possible by a passing pointer to its first element- the pointer is passed by value.
The only way to pass your array by value would be to encapsulate it
in a struct, but in most cases its better to pass a pointer then to copy all the data by value.
Just return a pointer to the first element of the array! :)

Simple example with templates

This is a simple question, and I am sure that it has been answered before but I cannot seem to find a good answer.
I have a class, Point:
template<class T>
Point{
\\code
}
...and now I want a vector of Points, some of which have T as an integer which have T as a double. I want to write something like
template<class T>
std::vector<Point<T> > points;
But, alas, this doesn't compile with the error "expected primary-expression before 'template'". I haven't been able to fidget with this code to make it work. Also relevant is that points is in the main class, so I can't stick the template declaration outside the function.
If someone could direct me to a solution, I would be much obliged.
Thanks.
If your goal is to have a vector that holds both Point<int> and Point<double> you can use Boost Variant.
typedef boost::variant<Point<int>, Point<double> > VariantPoint;
Then:
std::vector<VariantPoint> my_vector;
my_vector.push_back(Point<int>(1, 0));
my_vector.push_back(Point<double>(1.5f, 2.0f));
Will work. Note that to inspect the elements afterwards, you probably will have to use the visitor pattern as documented here.
If your goal is to have distinct vector types that can only hold one type of Point, then you may use:
template<typename T> using PointVector = std::vector<Point<T>>; // C++11
// Now you can write:
PointVector<int> my_vector;
// Which is equivalent to:
std::vector<Point<int>> my_vector;
Or, if C++11 is not an option:
template<typename T> struct PointVector
{
typedef std::vector<Point<T> > Type;
}
Then:
PointVector<int>::Type my_vector;
To get a single kind of vector, I would use inheritance:
template <typename T>
struct PointVector : public std::vector< Point<T> >
{
};
Note, the inheritance is just a mechanism to achieve the equivalent of a template typedef. This means, PointVector should not contain any data members or virtual functions. However, #ereOn's suggestion is preferred, and is discussed in the answer to this question.
The old fashioned way to achieve a variant would be to use a union.
class IntOrDouble {
union {
int i;
double d;
};
bool is_int;
bool is_double;
public:
IntOrDouble () : is_int(false), is_double(false) {}
IntOrDouble (int x) : is_int(true), is_double(false) { i = x; }
IntOrDouble (double x) : is_int(false), is_double(true) { d = x; }
int operator = (int x) {
is_int = true;
is_double = false;
return i = x;
};
double operator = (double x) {
is_int = false;
is_double = true;
return d = x;
};
operator int () const {
if (is_int) return i;
if (is_double) return d;
return 0;
}
operator double () const {
if (is_double) return d;
if (is_int) return i;
return 0;
}
};
typedef std::vector< Point<IntOrDouble> > PointVector;
But it all seems a little over the top for this use case. I'd just use vectors of double all around, unless memory was really tight.

advice for static template class

I have this problem (histogramming). I've a real space: [a,b] partitioned in some way ([a0=a, a1, a2, ..., b]). The partitioning may be with equal space (a1 - a0 = a2 - a1 = ...) or variables.
I need a class that handle this, with some methods to say given a value in which bin of the partition it belongs; other methods to find the center of a particular bin and more.
During the program I don't like to instantiate a class only to call these simple function like
Binner binner(binning);
binner.get_bin(1.3);
binner.get_centerbin(2);
so I tried to write a static class using template to do something like that:
Binner<binning>::get_bin(1.3);
Binner<binning>::get_centerbin(2);
is it a good idea? There are other way to do it? Now I've free functions like
double get_bin(double bin, Binning binning); // a lot of if/else inside
but I think it's too error prone.
Here my implementation:
enum Binning {CELL, LARGE, BE};
const double binning_LARGE[] = {0, 1.2, 1.425, 1.550, 1.800, 2.5};
const double binning_BE[] = {0, 1.425, 1.550, 2.5};
template<Binning binning>
class Binner
{
public:
static const double* bins;
static const int n;
static int get_bin(double value);
};
template<> const double* myclass<LARGE>::bins = binning_LARGE;
template<> const double* myclass<BE>::bins = binning_BE;
template<> const int myclass<LARGE>::n = sizeof(binning_LARGE) / sizeof(double);
template<> const int myclass<BE>::n = sizeof(binning_BE) / sizeof(double);
template<Binning binning> int myclass<binning>::get_bin(double value)
{
return find_if(bins, bins + n,
bind2nd(greater<double>(), value)) - bins - 1;
}
template<> int myclass<CELL>::get_bin(double value)
{
return static_cast<int>(value / 0.025);
}
is it a good implementation / design?
Is there a way to avoid the n field using std::vector? How?
Is there a way to parametrize the 0.025? I know that double can't be template parameter but can I write something similar to this:
Binner<0.025> binner;
other / advices?
Edit:
For the third point Why I can't do that:
template<Binning binning, int N=100>
class Binner
{
public:
static const double* bins;
static const int n;
static int bin(double value);
};
...
template<Binning binning, int N> int Binner<CELL, N>::bin(double value)
{
return static_cast<int>(value / (2.5 / N));
}
IMHO, your design is ok, if you do not want to instantiate a class. Indeed, it seems a kind of template metaprogramming to me. Whether this makes sense depends on how you are planning to reuse this template.
Using a std::vector would allow you to get rid of the variable to hold the array size, for sure. Now, if this is good for your design, I don't know... it would move some complexity out of your template definition, to the binning definition (which now you can initialize very simply)...
Finally, you can instantiate your template passing a constant to it:
template < Binning binning, unsigned long N, unsigned long M>
class ... {
<using N>
}
have you considered a traits class? Typically if you have static information that you want to separate from the behaviour in a class, you might consider creating a traits class that encapsulates that.
So I'd start with the default behaviour:
enum Binning {CELL, LARGE, BE};
template <Binning binning>
struct BinTraits
{
// default behaviour
int get_bin(double value) { return value / 0.025; }
};
Then I'd provide the specialisations:
const double binning_LARGE[] = {0, 1.2, 1.425, 1.550, 1.800, 2.5};
const double binning_BE[] = {0, 1.425, 1.550, 2.5};
template <typename RandomAccessCollectionT>
int get_bin_impl(double value, RandomAccessCollectionT collection, unsigned size)
{
return find_if(collection, collection + size,
bind2nd(greater<double>(), value)) - collection - 1;
}
template <>
struct BinTraits<LARGE>
{
int get_bin(double value) { return get_bin_impl(value, binning_LARGE, sizeof(binning_LARGE) / sizeof(binning_LARGE[0])); }
};
template <>
struct BinTraits<BE>
{
int get_bin(double value) { return get_bin_impl(value, binning_BE, sizeof(binning_BE) / sizeof(binning_BE[0])); }
};
Then I'd put the actual container behaviour in another class that requires binning behaviour (lets call it HashTable):
template <typename BinTraits>
class HashTable
{
public:
void insert(double value)
{
int bin = BinTraits::get_bin(value);
_bins[bin].insert(value);
}
// _bin is a multimap or something
};
Looking at the usage of find_if and bind2nd as well as functors, it seems as if you are quite knowledgeable about STL and some advanced C++ concepts; yet, what you are trying to do seems to be over-engineering. While I can't fully understand what you are trying to do but it seems that you could do away with templates completely and use just a class (instantiated with different values) and method parameters.