Given the following code :-
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
#include <string>
void func(std::function<void(void)> param)
{
param();
}
void func(std::function<void(int)> param)
{
param(5);
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
func([] () { std::cout << "void(void)" << std::endl; });
func([] (int i) { std::cout << "void(int): " << i << std::endl; });
std::string line;
std::getline(std::cin, line);
return 0;
}
Compile error from VS2010 :-
CppTest.cpp(18): error C2668: 'func' : ambiguous call to overloaded function
1> CppTest.cpp(11): could be 'void func(std::tr1::function<_Fty>)'
1> with
1> [
1> _Fty=void (int)
1> ]
1> CppTest.cpp(6): or 'void func(std::tr1::function<_Fty>)'
1> with
1> [
1> _Fty=void (void)
1> ]
1> while trying to match the argument list '(`anonymous-namespace'::<lambda0>)'
1>CppTest.cpp(19): error C2668: 'func' : ambiguous call to overloaded function
1> CppTest.cpp(11): could be 'void func(std::tr1::function<_Fty>)'
1> with
1> [
1> _Fty=void (int)
1> ]
1> CppTest.cpp(6): or 'void func(std::tr1::function<_Fty>)'
1> with
1> [
1> _Fty=void (void)
1> ]
1> while trying to match the argument list '(`anonymous-namespace'::<lambda1>)'
Compile error from g++-4.5
program2.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
program2.cpp:18:68: error: call of overloaded ‘func(main(int, char**)::<lambda()>)’ is ambiguous
program2.cpp:6:10: note: candidates are: void func(std::function<void()>)
program2.cpp:11:10: note: void func(std::function<void(int)>)
program2.cpp:19:79: error: call of overloaded ‘func(main(int, char**)::<lambda(int)>)’ is ambiguous
program2.cpp:6:10: note: candidates are: void func(std::function<void()>)
program2.cpp:11:10: note: void func(std::function<void(int)>)
So it seems the compiler can't figure out that a lambda [] () -> void can only be assigned to a std::function<void(void)>, and a lambda [] (int) -> void can only be assigned to a std::function<void(int)>. Is this supposed to happen or just a deficiency in the compilers?
Is this supposed to happen or just a deficiency in the compilers?
This is supposed to happen. std::function has a constructor template that can take an argument of any type. The compiler can't know until after a constructor template is selected and instantiated that it's going to run into errors, and it has to be able to select an overload of your function before it can do that.
The most straightforward fix is to use a cast or to explicitly construct a std::function object of the correct type:
func(std::function<void()>([](){}));
func(std::function<void(int)>([](int){}));
If you have a compiler that supports the captureless-lambda-to-function-pointer conversion and your lambda doesn't capture anything, you can use raw function pointers:
void func(void (*param)()) { }
void func(void (*param)(int)) { }
(It looks like you are using Visual C++ 2010, which does not support this conversion. The conversion was not added to the specification until just before Visual Studio 2010 shipped, too late to add it in.)
To explain the problem in a bit more detail, consider the following:
template <typename T>
struct function {
template <typename U>
function(U f) { }
};
This is basically what the std::function constructor in question looks like: You can call it with any argument, even if the argument doesn't make sense and would cause an error somewhere else. For example, function<int()> f(42); would invoke this constructor template with U = int.
In your specific example, the compiler finds two candidate functions during overload resolution:
void func(std::function<void(void)>)
void func(std::function<void(int)>)
The argument type, some unutterable lambda type name that we will refer to as F, doesn't match either of these exactly, so the compiler starts looking at what conversions it can do to F to try and make it match one of these candidate functions. When looking for conversions, it finds the aforementioned constructor template.
All the compiler sees at this point is that it can call either function because
it can convert F to std::function<void(void)> using its converting constructor with U = F and
it can convert F to std::function<void(int)> using its converting constructor with U = F.
In your example it is obvious that only one of these will succeed without error, but in the general case that isn't true. The compiler can't do anything further. It has to report the ambiguity and fail. It can't pick one because both conversions are equally good and neither overload is better than the other.
Related
Given the following code :-
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
#include <string>
void func(std::function<void(void)> param)
{
param();
}
void func(std::function<void(int)> param)
{
param(5);
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
func([] () { std::cout << "void(void)" << std::endl; });
func([] (int i) { std::cout << "void(int): " << i << std::endl; });
std::string line;
std::getline(std::cin, line);
return 0;
}
Compile error from VS2010 :-
CppTest.cpp(18): error C2668: 'func' : ambiguous call to overloaded function
1> CppTest.cpp(11): could be 'void func(std::tr1::function<_Fty>)'
1> with
1> [
1> _Fty=void (int)
1> ]
1> CppTest.cpp(6): or 'void func(std::tr1::function<_Fty>)'
1> with
1> [
1> _Fty=void (void)
1> ]
1> while trying to match the argument list '(`anonymous-namespace'::<lambda0>)'
1>CppTest.cpp(19): error C2668: 'func' : ambiguous call to overloaded function
1> CppTest.cpp(11): could be 'void func(std::tr1::function<_Fty>)'
1> with
1> [
1> _Fty=void (int)
1> ]
1> CppTest.cpp(6): or 'void func(std::tr1::function<_Fty>)'
1> with
1> [
1> _Fty=void (void)
1> ]
1> while trying to match the argument list '(`anonymous-namespace'::<lambda1>)'
Compile error from g++-4.5
program2.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
program2.cpp:18:68: error: call of overloaded ‘func(main(int, char**)::<lambda()>)’ is ambiguous
program2.cpp:6:10: note: candidates are: void func(std::function<void()>)
program2.cpp:11:10: note: void func(std::function<void(int)>)
program2.cpp:19:79: error: call of overloaded ‘func(main(int, char**)::<lambda(int)>)’ is ambiguous
program2.cpp:6:10: note: candidates are: void func(std::function<void()>)
program2.cpp:11:10: note: void func(std::function<void(int)>)
So it seems the compiler can't figure out that a lambda [] () -> void can only be assigned to a std::function<void(void)>, and a lambda [] (int) -> void can only be assigned to a std::function<void(int)>. Is this supposed to happen or just a deficiency in the compilers?
Is this supposed to happen or just a deficiency in the compilers?
This is supposed to happen. std::function has a constructor template that can take an argument of any type. The compiler can't know until after a constructor template is selected and instantiated that it's going to run into errors, and it has to be able to select an overload of your function before it can do that.
The most straightforward fix is to use a cast or to explicitly construct a std::function object of the correct type:
func(std::function<void()>([](){}));
func(std::function<void(int)>([](int){}));
If you have a compiler that supports the captureless-lambda-to-function-pointer conversion and your lambda doesn't capture anything, you can use raw function pointers:
void func(void (*param)()) { }
void func(void (*param)(int)) { }
(It looks like you are using Visual C++ 2010, which does not support this conversion. The conversion was not added to the specification until just before Visual Studio 2010 shipped, too late to add it in.)
To explain the problem in a bit more detail, consider the following:
template <typename T>
struct function {
template <typename U>
function(U f) { }
};
This is basically what the std::function constructor in question looks like: You can call it with any argument, even if the argument doesn't make sense and would cause an error somewhere else. For example, function<int()> f(42); would invoke this constructor template with U = int.
In your specific example, the compiler finds two candidate functions during overload resolution:
void func(std::function<void(void)>)
void func(std::function<void(int)>)
The argument type, some unutterable lambda type name that we will refer to as F, doesn't match either of these exactly, so the compiler starts looking at what conversions it can do to F to try and make it match one of these candidate functions. When looking for conversions, it finds the aforementioned constructor template.
All the compiler sees at this point is that it can call either function because
it can convert F to std::function<void(void)> using its converting constructor with U = F and
it can convert F to std::function<void(int)> using its converting constructor with U = F.
In your example it is obvious that only one of these will succeed without error, but in the general case that isn't true. The compiler can't do anything further. It has to report the ambiguity and fail. It can't pick one because both conversions are equally good and neither overload is better than the other.
When compiling the following code, Visual Studio reports:
\main.cpp(21): error C2664: 'std::_Call_wrapper<std::_Callable_pmd<int ClassA::* const ,_Arg0,false>,false> std::mem_fn<void,ClassA>(int ClassA::* const )' : cannot convert argument 1 from 'overloaded-function' to 'int ClassA::* const '
1> with
1> [
1> _Arg0=ClassA
1> ]
1> Context does not allow for disambiguation of overloaded function
Why is the compiler confused when creating mem_fptr1? But some how mem_fptr2 is ok when I specify the types.
Can I create member function pointer to an overloaded member function that takes no argument?
class ClassA
{
public:
void memberfunction()
{
std::cout <<"Invoking ClassA::memberfunction without argument" << std::endl;
}
void memberfunction(int arg)
{
std::cout << "Invoking ClassA::memberfunction with integer " << arg << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
auto mem_fptr1 = std::mem_fn<void, ClassA>(&ClassA::memberfunction);
auto mem_fptr2 = std::mem_fn<void, ClassA, int>(&ClassA::memberfunction);
mem_fptr1(ClassA());
mem_fptr2(ClassA(), 3);
}
The template overloads taking a variadic list of argument types were introduced in C++11 but removed in C++14 as defect #2048. The way to specify a particular overload is to specify a function type as the first template argument (the second template argument, the class type, can be omitted as it can be deduced):
auto mem_fptr1 = std::mem_fn<void()>(&ClassA::memberfunction);
auto mem_fptr2 = std::mem_fn<void(int)>(&ClassA::memberfunction);
The function type R is then composed with the class type T as R T::* to give the member function type. This also allows forming a std::mem_fn to a data member (where R is a non-function type).
Note that your code (for mem_fptr2) does not work in C++14 where the template overloads taking a variadic list of argument types are removed; the above code will work in both versions of the Standard.
An alternative is to perform a member function cast; in this case you do not need to specify template arguments to mem_fn:
auto mem_fptr1 = std::mem_fn(
static_cast<void (ClassA::*)()>(&ClassA::memberfunction));
auto mem_fptr2 = std::mem_fn(
static_cast<void (ClassA::*)(int)>(&ClassA::memberfunction));
I'm writing a delegate class but it fails to take const member functions.
Here is a test case :
class foo
{
public:
void MemberFunction()
{
printf("non const member function\n");
}
void ConstMemberFunction() const
{
printf("const member function\n");
}
};
template <class C, void (C::*Function)()>
void Call(C* instance)
{
(instance->*Function)();
}
int main (int argc, char** argv)
{
foo bar;
Call<foo,&foo::MemberFunction>(&bar);
Call<foo,&foo::ConstMemberFunction>(&bar);
}
Now the compiler (visual studio 2010) gives me an error he cannot convert the const member function to a non-const function :
2>..\src\main.cpp(54): error C2440: 'specialization' : cannot convert from 'void (__cdecl foo::* )(void) const' to 'void (__cdecl foo::* const )(void)'
2> Types pointed to are unrelated; conversion requires reinterpret_cast, C-style cast or function-style cast
2>..\src\main.cpp(54): error C2973: 'Call' : invalid template argument 'void (__cdecl foo::* )(void) const'
2> ..\src\main.cpp(37) : see declaration of 'Call'
ok, easy fix (I though :P ) by adding this :
template <class C, void (C::*Function)() const>
void Call(C* instance)
{
(instance->*Function)();
}
but now the compiler is completly confused (and me with it). it looks like he now tries to use the const function for the non-const member function and the non-const function for the const member function.
2>..\src\main.cpp(53): error C2440: 'specialization' : cannot convert from 'void (__cdecl foo::* )(void)' to 'void (__cdecl foo::* const )(void) const'
2> Types pointed to are unrelated; conversion requires reinterpret_cast, C-style cast or function-style cast
2>..\src\main.cpp(53): error C2973: 'Call' : invalid template argument 'void (__cdecl foo::* )(void)'
2> ..\src\main.cpp(43) : see declaration of 'Call'
2>..\src\main.cpp(53): error C2668: 'Call' : ambiguous call to overloaded function
2> ..\src\main.cpp(43): could be 'void Call<foo,void foo::MemberFunction(void)>(C *)'
2> with
2> [
2> C=foo
2> ]
2> ..\src\main.cpp(37): or 'void Call<foo,void foo::MemberFunction(void)>(C *)'
2> with
2> [
2> C=foo
2> ]
2> while trying to match the argument list '(foo *)'
2>..\src\main.cpp(54): error C2440: 'specialization' : cannot convert from 'void (__cdecl foo::* )(void) const' to 'void (__cdecl foo::* const )(void)'
2> Types pointed to are unrelated; conversion requires reinterpret_cast, C-style cast or function-style cast
2>..\src\main.cpp(54): error C2973: 'Call' : invalid template argument 'void (__cdecl foo::* )(void) const'
2> ..\src\main.cpp(37) : see declaration of 'Call'
2>..\src\main.cpp(54): error C2668: 'Call' : ambiguous call to overloaded function
2> ..\src\main.cpp(43): could be 'void Call<foo,void foo::ConstMemberFunction(void) const>(C *)'
2> with
2> [
2> C=foo
2> ]
2> ..\src\main.cpp(37): or 'void Call<foo,void foo::ConstMemberFunction(void) const>(C *)'
2> with
2> [
2> C=foo
2> ]
2> while trying to match the argument list '(foo *)'
If I would rename the second Call function (with the const), it all works fine but I would rather use one function.
So, can anybody point me towards what I'm doing wrong and how I can make this work ?
Thx!
I think you might be able to address this by removing the function pointer from the template type signature and instead relying on overloading:
template <class C>
void Call(C* ptr, void (C::*function)()) {
(ptr->*function)();
}
template <class C>
void Call(C* ptr, void (C::*function)() const) {
(ptr->*function)();
}
This now uses normal function overloading to select which of the two functions should be called. const member function pointers will call down to the second version, while non-const functions will call up to the first version. This also means that you don't need to explicitly provide any type information to the template function; the compiler can deduce C in both contexts.
Let me know if (1) this doesn't work or (2) this does work, but isn't what you want.
Hope this helps!
Use std::bind or lambdas, which VS2010 supports, and std::function and this will cease to be a problem for you.
Your problem is that a member function pointer is a different type than a const member function pointer. I modified your Call function to this:
template< typename C, typename funcptr_t, funcptr_t ptr >
void Call( C *instance )
{
(instance->*ptr)();
}
and now using the additional template parameter, I can call it like this:
Call<foo,void (foo::*)(),&foo::MemberFunction>(&bar);
Call<foo,void (foo::*)() const, &foo::ConstMemberFunction>(&bar);
That's a bit messy, though. The overloading solution is better! :-)
I've heard a little bit about reference-to-reference problem and this resolution. I'm not very good with C++ Committee terminology, but I understand the "Moved to DR" annotation in the link means that this is the current interpretation that standard-conforming compilers should adhere to.
I have this sample code that I can't understand:
template <typename T>
struct C {
void f(T&) { }
void f(const T&) { }
};
int main() {
C<int> x; // OK
C<int&> y; // compile error: f cannot be overloaded
C<const int&> z; // compile error: f cannot be overloaded
}
I understand the error in C<const int&> case: using rules from DR #106 we get two methods with the same signature f(const int&). What I don't get is the C<int&> case: shouldn't it generate exactly the same code as C<int> (at least according to Stroustrup's resolution)?
DR only means "Defect Report", and to my knowledge, the described resolution hasn't made it (yet) to the standard. For this reason, I believe a strictly conforming C++03 implementation should not compile this code because of it is forming a reference to a reference.
[Edit] Just found a nice answer on this issue.
Interestingly, when I compile your code (Visual C++ 10 Express) I get errors, but also when I try this simpler case:
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
C<int> x; // OK
C<const int> x1; // error C2535: 'void C<T>::f(T &)' : member function
// already defined or declared
return 0;
}
Seems like the ref-to-ref collapsing defined in the DR you mentioned means that const ref becomes a simple non-const ref within the template. My problem with this is that I don't understand why the second f is not just ignored.
If I change C so that the second f is const-qualified, this now compiles:
template <typename T>
struct C {
void f(T&) { }
void f(const T& t) const {}
};
The implication seems to be that when C is instantiated with const anything (ref or not), the two C::f overloads are simply identical, and result in compile-time duplicate detection.
Perhaps somebody smarter than me can decipher the chain more definitively here.
EDIT: On reflection, it's not surprising here that T = const int& results in the f overloads being identically instantiated as
void f(const int&) {}
That's what the compiler is telling me:
#include "stdafx.h"
template <typename T>
struct C {
void f(T&) { }
void f(const T&) { }
};
int main() {
C<const int&> z; // compile error: f cannot be overloaded
return 0;
}
gives this error:
1>test.cpp(6): error C2535: 'void C<T>::f(T)' : member function already
defined or declared
1> with
1> [
1> T=const int &
1> ]
1> test.cpp(5) : see declaration of 'C<T>::f'
1> with
1> [
1> T=const int &
1> ]
1> test.cpp(10) : see reference to class template instantiation
'C<T>' being compiled
1> with
1> [
1> T=const int &
1> ]
I'm not even convinced this has anything to do with the DR.
I'm trying to use STL, but the following doesn't compile. main.cpp:
#include <set>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
class Odp
{
public:
set<int> nums;
bool IsOdd(int i)
{
return i % 2 != 0;
}
bool fAnyOddNums()
{
set<int>::iterator iter = find_if(nums.begin(), nums.end(), &Odp::IsOdd);
return iter != nums.end();
}
};
int main()
{
Odp o;
o.nums.insert(0);
o.nums.insert(1);
o.nums.insert(2);
}
The error is:
error C2064: term does not evaluate to a function taking 1 arguments
1> c:\program files\microsoft visual studio 10.0\vc\include\algorithm(95) : see reference to function template instantiation '_InIt std::_Find_if<std::_Tree_unchecked_const_iterator<_Mytree>,_Pr>(_InIt,_InIt,_Pr)' being compiled
1> with
1> [
1> _InIt=std::_Tree_unchecked_const_iterator<std::_Tree_val<std::_Tset_traits<int,std::less<int>,std::allocator<int>,false>>>,
1> _Mytree=std::_Tree_val<std::_Tset_traits<int,std::less<int>,std::allocator<int>,false>>,
1> _Pr=bool (__thiscall Odp::* )(int)
1> ]
1> main.cpp(20) : see reference to function template instantiation '_InIt std::find_if<std::_Tree_const_iterator<_Mytree>,bool(__thiscall Odp::* )(int)>(_InIt,_InIt,_Pr)' being compiled
1> with
1> [
1> _InIt=std::_Tree_const_iterator<std::_Tree_val<std::_Tset_traits<int,std::less<int>,std::allocator<int>,false>>>,
1> _Mytree=std::_Tree_val<std::_Tset_traits<int,std::less<int>,std::allocator<int>,false>>,
1> _Pr=bool (__thiscall Odp::* )(int)
1> ]
What am I doing wrong?
It needs to be declared static:
static bool IsOdd(int i)
Otherwise, you'd be asking find_if to call an instance method without an instance.
The problem is you are passing a pointer to member function. To call that function you would also need a pointer to this but the find_if doesn't let you to pass it. A solution is to wrap it using a function object, see Boost Bind (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_43_0/libs/bind/bind.html) and Boost Function (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0/doc/html/function.html).
IsOdd does not use the class's internals in any way, so don't make it a member function. Instead, pull it out as a standalone function. Then you can call find_if with &IsOdd.
However, there is a benefit to taking things a step further and defining it as a function object:
#include <functional>
struct IsOdd : public unary_function<int, bool>
{
bool operator()(int i) const { return i % 2 != 0; }
};
Then calling find_if with IsOdd() will inline the code within the find_if loop instead of dereferencing a function pointer and making a function call.