Template argument deduction from function body - c++

Question

If we've this function template,
template<typename T>
void f(T param) {}
Then we can call it in the following ways,
int i=0;
f<int>(i);//T=int : no need to deduce T
f(i); //T=int : deduced T from the function argument!
//likewise
sample s;
f(s); //T=sample : deduced T from the function argument!
Now consider this variant of the above function template,
template<typename TArg, typename TBody>
void g(TArg param)
{
TBody v=param.member;
}
Now, can the compiler deduce the template arguments if we write,
sample s;
g(s); //TArg=sample, TBody=int??
Suppose sample is defined as,
struct sample
{
int member;
};
There are basically two questions:
Can the compiler deduce the template arguments in the second example?
If no, then why? Is there any difficulty? If the Standard doesn't say anything about "template argument deduction from function body", then is it because the argument(s) cannot be deduced? Or it didn't consider such deduction so as to avoid adding more complexity to the language? Or what?
I would like know your views on such deduction.
EDIT:
By the way, the GCC is able to deduce function arguments if we write this code:
template<typename T>
void h(T p)
{
cout << "g() " << p << endl;
return;
}
template<typename T>
void g(T p)
{
h(p.member); //if here GCC can deduce T for h(), then why not TBody in the previous example?
return;
}
Working demonstration for this example : http://www.ideone.com/cvXEA
Not working demonstration for the previous example: http://www.ideone.com/UX038

Answer 1

You probably already concluded that the compiler won't deduce TBody by examining the type of sample.member. This would add yet another level of complexity to the template deduction algorithm.
The template matching algorithm only considers function signatures, not their bodies. While not used too often, it's perfectly legal to simply declare a templated function without providing the body:
template <typename T> void f(T param);
This satisfies the compiler. In order to satisfy the linker, you must of course also define the function body somewhere, and ensure that all required instantiations have been provided. But the function body does not necessarily have to be visible to client code of the template function, as long as the required instantiations are available at link time. The body would have to explicitly instantiate the function, eg:
template <> void f(int param);
But this only partially applies to your questions, because you could imagine a scenario like the following, where a 2nd parameter could be deduced from the a provided default parameter, and which won't compile:
template<typename TArg, typename TBody>
void g(TArg param, TBody body = param.member); // won't deduce TBody from TArg
The template matching algorithm considers only the actual type, not any potential nested member types in case of classes or structs. This would have added another level of complexity which apparently was judged to be too complex. Where should the algorithm stop? Are members of members, and so forth, also to be considered?
Also, it's not required because there are other means of achieving the same intention, as shown in the example below.
Nothing prevents you from writing:
struct sample
{
typedef int MemberType;
MemberType member;
};
template<typename TArg>
void g(TArg param)
{
typename TArg::MemberType v = param.member;
}
sample s = { 0 };
g(s);
in order to obtain the same effect.
Regarding your sample you added after editing: whereas it seems that h(p.member) does depend on the member of the struct, and hence the template matching algorithm should fail, it doesn't because you made it a two-step process:
Upon seeing g(s);, the compiler looks for any function taking an argument of type sample (templated or not!). In your case, the best match is void g(T p). At this point, the compiler has not even looked at the body of g(T p) yet!.
Now, the compiler creates a instance of g(T p), specialized for T: sample. So when it sees h(p.member) it knows that p.member is of type int, and will try locate a function h() taking an argument of type int. Your template function h(T p) turns out to be the best match.
Note that if you had written (note the NOT_A_member):
template<typename T>
void g(T p)
{
h(p.NOT_A_member);
return;
}
then the compiler would still consider g() a valid match at stage 1. You then get an error when it turns out that sample does not have a member called NOT_A_member.

Answer 2

There are a couple of things that the compiler cannot possibly do with the code that you provide, the first of which is deduce the second template argument TBody. First, type deduction is only applied to the arguments of the function when the compiler is trying to match the call. At that point the definition of the templated function is not even looked at.
For extra credits, even if the compiler were to look the function definition, the code TBody v = parameter.member is non-deducible in itself, as there are potentially infinite data types that can accept a parameter.member in the constructor.
Now, on the second block of code. To understand it the whole process of template compilation starts when the compiler sees the function call g(x) at that point of call. The compiler sees that the best candidate is the template function template <typename T> void g( T ) and determines what the type T is as part of the overload resolution. Once the compiler determines that it is a call to the template, it performs the first pass of compilation on that function.
During the first pass, syntactic checks are perform without an actual substitution of the type, so the template argument T is still any-type and the argument p is of a yet-unknown type. During the first pass, the code is verified, but dependent names are skipped and their meaning is just assumed. When the compiler sees p.member, and p is of type T that is a template argument it assumes that it will be a member of the yet unknown type (this is the reason why if it is a type you would have to qualify it here with typename). The call h(p.member); is also dependent on the type argument T and is left as it is, assuming that once the type substitution takes place everything will make sense.
Then the compiler does actually substitute the type. At this step T is no longer a generic type, but it represents the concrete type sample. Now the compiler during the second pass tries to fill in the gaps that were left during the first pass. When it sees p.member it looks member inside the type and determines that it is an int and tries to resolve the call h( p.member ); with that knowledge. Because the type T has been resolved before this second stage, this is equivalent to the outside call g(x): all types are known and the compiler only needs to resolve what is the best overload for a function call h that takes an argument of type int&, and the whole process starts again, the template h is found as the best candidate, and ...
It is really important for metaprogramming to understand that type deduction is performed only on the actual signature of the function and not the body, and that is what makes it non-trivial for beginners. Using enable_if (from boost or elsewhere) in the function signature as argument or return type is not a coincidence, but the only way of having the compiler fail to substitute the type before the template is selected as best candidate and the substitution failure is turned into an actual error (and not SFINAE)

Answer 3

No compiler could possibly implement this functionality in a consistent manner. You are simply asking too much.

Answer 4

TBody might be ambiguous, because sample might not be the only type that has a member member. Furthermore, if g calls other template functions, the compiler has no way of knowing what other restrictions might be imposed on TBody.
So in some edge cases, it is theoretically possible to deduce the proper type for TBody, generally it is not.