Got this in "char.h"
#ifndef _CHAR_H_
#define _CHAR_H_
#include <stdio.h>
template <unsigned int TChar>
class Char
{
public:
Char(){ *m_data=0; m_len=-1; }
private:
char m_data[TChar+1];
int m_len;
};
#endif
Now with this simple test :
#include "char.h"
void test(Char<TChar> &oo)
{
//...
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
Char<80> gg;
return 0;
}
I get with gcc :
TChar was not declared in that scope !?
I don't understand, the declaration is in the .h ??
Thanks...
The full implementation of a template class must be in that template class's header (otherwise you are likely to get a linker error).
The compiler needs to have access to the entire template definition (not just the signature) in order to generate code for each instantiation of the template, so you need to move the definitions of the functions to your header. (Inclusion Model).
You have placed the definition correctly. :-)
However in void test(Char<TChar> &oo) the compiler doesn't know what TChar is. Try adding template <unsigned int TChar> above the definition
template <unsigned int TChar>
void test(Char<TChar> &oo){
// ... stuff
}
You seem to be confused about what template class is. When you write:
template <unsigned int TChar>
class Char
{
/* ... */
};
You're telling the compiler how to generate classes named as Char<somenumber>. Every time you use Char<1>, Char<2>, ... with different parameters somewhere in your code, the compiler will create a new class for you.
The name TChar only represents the value that is to be given as the part of the type name and is valid only inside your class template.
This means that when you write Char<80> the compiler looks if he already has that type - which he doesn't, so he goes and creates a new class named Char<80> based on your template. That's why you can't write a function that takes any Char because Char<80> and Char<81> are different types.
What others are suggesting is that you can turn your function into a function template.
// compiler can't know what value should be used here
// it expects an unsigned int inside <>
void test(Char<TChar> &oo)
{
//...
}
With function templates it works the same as with classes.
template<unsigned int TChar>
void test(Char<TChar> &oo)
{
//...
}
Now when you write
Char<80> gg;
test(gg);
The compiler looks at the type of gg, sees that it can match it with your function template, creates a function with TChar evaluated as 80 and all works out nicely :)
To be precise, the call to your function should look like this:
test<80>(gg);
but you don't have to say this explicitly, because the compiler has enough information from the type of gg to work that all out for you.
If you want to pass Char instantiations to non-templated functions, you can achieve this with polymorphism like this:
class CharBase {
public:
virtual char get(int index) = 0;
virtual ~CharBase() {} // virtual destructor is strongly recommended
};
template<unsigned int CharT>
class Char : public CharBase {
public:
char get(int index) { return m_data[index]; }
/* ... */
};
void test(CharBase &myChar) { /* ... */ }
void test(Char<TChar> &oo)
{
//...
}
TChar is undefined for this function to be compiled. The file char.h doesn't define TChar.
Related
After having found answers to many of my questions on stackoverflow, I have now come up against a question of which I can't find the answer and I hope that someone is willing to help me!
My problem is that I want to do an explicit templatization of a function inside a class in C++. My compiler (g++) and a look in the C++ standard (§14.7.3) tells me that this specialization has to be done in the namespace in which the class is declared. I understand that this implies that I cannot put the specialization inside the class, but I don't see the point of this restriction! Does anyone know if there is a good reason for not letting the specializations be made inside the class?
I know that there are workarounds, e.g. to put the function inside a struct, but I want to understand why the language has this design. If there is a good reason for not allowing specialized functions inside the class, I guess I should know it before trying to work around it.
Thanks in advance!
To make my question a little bit more precise: Here is some code from a test example which illustrates what I want to do:
#include <cstdio>
namespace MalinTester {
template <size_t DIMENSIONALITY>
class SpecializationTest {
public:
SpecializationTest() {
privateVariable = 5;
};
virtual ~SpecializationTest() {};
void execute() {
execute<DIMENSIONALITY>();
};
private:
int privateVariable;
template <size_t currentDim>
static void execute() {
printf("This is the general case. Current dim is %d. The private variable is %d.\n", currentDim, privateVariable);
execute<currentDim-1>();
}
template <>
static void execute<0>() {
printf("This is the base case. Current dim is 0.\n");
}
};
This is not possible; g++ says:
SpecializationTest_fcn.h:27: error: explicit specialization in non-namespace scope ‘class MalinTester::SpecializationTest<DIMENSIONALITY>’
SpecializationTest_fcn.h:28: error: template-id ‘execute<0>’ in declaration of primary template
If I put the function execute outside the class, in the name space MalinTester, it will look like this:
#include <cstdio>
namespace MalinTester {
template <size_t DIMENSIONALITY> class SpecializationTest {};
template <size_t currentDim>
void execute() {
printf("This is the general case. Current dim is %d. The private variable is %d.\n", currentDim, privateVariable);
execute<currentDim-1>();
}
template <>
void execute<0>() {
printf("This is the base case. Current dim is 0.\n");
}
template <size_t DIMENSIONALITY>
class SpecializationTest {
public:
SpecializationTest() {};
virtual ~SpecializationTest() {};
void execute() {
MalinTester::execute<DIMENSIONALITY>();
};
private:
int privateVariable = 5;
};
};
};
and I cannot use privatevariable in the templatized versions of execute, as it is private in the class. I really want it private, as I want to have my data encapsulated as far as possible.
Of course I can send privateVariable as an argument to the function, but I think it would be more beautiful to avoid this, and what I really wonder is if there is a good reason for the C++ standard not to allow explicit specialization as in the first code example above.
#Arne Mertz: This is the workaround I have tried, but it doesn't allow using privateVariable either. And most of all, I wonder if it is a good idea to do like this. As I'm not allowed to make specializations of member functions, maybe I shouldn't do specializations of functions encapsulated in structs inside the class either.
#include <cstdio>
namespace MalinTester {
template <size_t DIMENSIONALITY>
class SpecializationTest {
public:
SpecializationTest() {
privateVariable = 5;
};
virtual ~SpecializationTest() {};
void execute() {
Loop<DIMENSIONALITY, 0>::execute();
};
private:
int privateVariable;
template <size_t currentDim, size_t DUMMY>
struct Loop {
static void execute() {
printf("This is the general case. Current dim is %d.\n", currentDim);
Loop<currentDim-1, 0>::execute();
}
};
template <size_t DUMMY>
struct Loop<0, DUMMY> {
static void execute() {
printf("This is the base case. Current dim is 0.\n");
}
};
};
};
Base specialization:
In .h:
template <class T>
class UISelectorSlider : public UISelectorFromRange<T> {
public:
UISelectorSlider();
virtual ~UISelectorSlider();
private:
float width;
float getPositionFromValue(T value);
};
In .cpp under same namespace:
template <>
float UISelectorSlider<MVHue>::getPositionFromValue(MVHue value)
{
return width * (float)value / 360.0;
}
If you want specialized function within specialized class:
Inside class add (.h) (private function):
private:
template <int I>
void foo();
Specialization inside .cpp:
template <>
template <>
void UISelectorSlider<MVHue>::foo<3>()
{
// you can access private fields here
}
UPDATE:
But you cant write something like this:
template <class T>
template <>
void UISelectorSlider<T>::foo<3>()
{
// you can access private fields here
}
You will get: error: enclosing class templates are not explicitly specialized.
It does not matter is this definition inside class or in namespace. The point is that this is not exact partial specialization - this function does not have defined context class (which members you want to call). In other words - when you specialize member you actually try specialize the whole containing class, but not the member itself. And compiler cant do that because class is not yet defined completely. So this is restriction by template design. And if it actually worked - templates would be full equivalent to simple macros.
(And you probably can will solve your task with some macro magic.)
I've encountered a header in an external sdk like so:
// external.h
//
template <class T> class MyBaseEnum
{
public:
/** String list. */
static const char *mStrings[];
//! Constructor.
inline MyBaseEnum(){}
//! Destructor.
inline ~MyBaseEnum()
{
}
};
I've seen this class used in the same sdk in another header like so:
// foo.h
//
class Foo
{
enum MyEnum
{
A = 0,
B,
C
};
typedef MyBaseEnum< MyEnum > MyEnumType;
MyEnumType bar;
};
I don't have access to the corresponding cpp file to see how mStrings is initialized for bar, but I think this is related to type traits.
What would the syntax look like in foo.cpp to correctly initialize MyEnumType::mStrings?
As MyBaseEnum is a templated class, the mStrings member can't be defined in a separate source file. It has to be done in a header file that is included, as the definition requires the template argument.
The syntax is basically the same as defining any other string array:
template<class T>
const char* MyBaseEnum<T>::mStrings = { ... };
This is a strange question because I already know the 'coding' answer. I just want to get a better understanding of why it is so. There are guru's here who have a knack of explaining these things better than the C++ standard :)
Below we have a means to define an abstract factory template that allocates objects based on a string as a key (it is a contrived example):-
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
template <typename T, typename TProduct>
TProduct *MyFactoryConstructHelper(const T *t)
{
if (!t) return new T;
return new T(*static_cast<const T*>(t));
}
template <typename TProduct>
class AbstractFactory
{
public:
typedef TProduct *(*MyFactoryConstructor)(const void *);
typedef map<string, MyFactoryConstructor> MyFactoryConstructorMap;
static TProduct *Create(const string &iName)
{
MyFactoryConstructor ctr = mTypes[iName];
TProduct *result = NULL;
if(ctr) result = ctr(NULL);
return result;
}
template <typename T>
static bool Register(const string &iName) {
typedef TProduct*(*ConstructPtr)(const T*);
ConstructPtr cPtr = MyFactoryConstructHelper<T, TProduct>;
string name = iName;
mTypes.insert(pair<string,MyFactoryConstructor>(name, reinterpret_cast<MyFactoryConstructor>(cPtr)));
return(true);
}
protected:
AbstractFactory() {}
static MyFactoryConstructorMap mTypes;
};
template <typename TProduct>
map<string, /*typename*/ AbstractFactory<TProduct>::MyFactoryConstructor> AbstractFactory<TProduct>::mTypes;
Here is an example of how we use it: -
class MyProduct
{
public:
virtual ~MyProduct() {}
virtual void Iam() = 0;
};
class MyProductFactory : public AbstractFactory<MyProduct>
{
public:
};
class ProductA : public MyProduct
{
public:
void Iam() { cout << "ProductA" << endl; }
};
class ProductB : public MyProduct
{
public:
void Iam() { cout << "ProductB" << endl; }
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
MyProduct *prd;
MyProductFactory::Register<ProductA>("A");
MyProductFactory::Register<ProductB>("B");
prd = MyProductFactory::Create("A");
prd->Iam();
delete prd;
prd = MyProductFactory::Create("B");
prd->Iam();
delete prd;
return 0;
}
It will not compile as is, complaining that the map does not have a valid template type argument for the data type. But if you remove the comments around the 'typename' keyword in the static member definition, everything compiles and works fine... why?
and also, can I make this any better? :)
The standard tries to allow an implementation to parse and
detect as many errors in a template as possible when it reads
the template definition, before any instantiations. C++ is not
context independent, however, and it's very difficult, if not
impossible, to correctly parse statements if you don't know
which symbols are types and which are templates. If the symbol
is dependent (depends on the template parameters in some way),
you have to tell the compiler when it is a type or a template;
otherwise, the compiler must assume that it is something else.
In this case, you're telling the compiler that
AbstractFactory::MyFactoryConstructor names a type,
and not something else.
If, when the template is instantiated, and the compiler can see
to what the symbol is really bound, it turns out that you lied
(e.g. AbstractFactory::MyFactoryConstructor is in fact
an int), then the compiler will get mad at you.
Note too that the fact that the AbstractFactory was defined
before the definition requiring the typedef doesn't change
anything. There could always be an explicit specialization for
the type you're instantiating AbstractFactory on.
The simple reason is that even though you and I looking at the code know that AbstractFactory::MyFactoryConstructor is a type, the compiler doesn't -- or rather, is prohibited by the standard from knowing this. As far as it knows in the first pass of compilation, MyFactoryConstructor -- itself inside a template yet to be fully realized -- could be something else, like a static variable, which isn't allowed as the second template argument to the map, which requires a type. Supplying "typename" permits the compiler to treat it as a type as soon as it is first encountered.
Why does following code raise an exception (in createObjects call to map::at)
alternativly the code (and its output) can be viewed here
intererestingly the code works as expected if the commented lines are uncommented with both microsoft and gcc compiler (see here), this even works with initMap as ordinary static variable instead of static getter.
The only reason for this i can think of is that the order of initialization of the static registerHelper_ object (factory_helper_)and the std::map object (initMap) are wrong, however i cant see how that could happen, because the map object is constructed on first usage and thats in factory_helper_ constructor, so everything should be alright shouldnt it ?
I am even more suprised that those doNothing() lines fix the issue, because that call to doNothing() would happen after the critical section (which currently fails) is passed anyway.
EDIT: debugging showed, that without the call to factory_helper_.doNothing(), the constructor of factory_helper_ is never called.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <map>
#define FACTORY_CLASS(classtype) \
extern const char classtype##_name_[] = #classtype; \
class classtype : FactoryBase<classtype,classtype##_name_>
namespace detail_
{
class registerHelperBase
{
public:
registerHelperBase(){}
protected:
static std::map<std::string, void * (*)(void)>& getInitMap() {
static std::map<std::string, void * (*)(void)>* initMap = 0;
if(!initMap)
initMap= new std::map<std::string, void * (*)(void)>();
return *initMap;
}
};
template<class TParent, const char* ClassName>
class registerHelper_ : registerHelperBase {
static registerHelper_ help_;
public:
//void doNothing(){}
registerHelper_(){
getInitMap()[std::string(ClassName)]=&TParent::factory_init_;
}
};
template<class TParent, const char* ClassName>
registerHelper_<TParent,ClassName> registerHelper_<TParent,ClassName>::help_;
}
class Factory : detail_::registerHelperBase
{
private:
Factory();
public:
static void* createObject(const std::string& objclassname) {
return getInitMap().at(objclassname)();
}
};
template <class TClass, const char* ClassName>
class FactoryBase {
private:
static detail_::registerHelper_<FactoryBase<TClass,ClassName>,ClassName> factory_helper_;
static void* factory_init_(){ return new TClass();}
public:
friend class detail_::registerHelper_<FactoryBase<TClass,ClassName>,ClassName>;
FactoryBase(){
//factory_helper_.doNothing();
}
virtual ~FactoryBase(){};
};
template <class TClass, const char* ClassName>
detail_::registerHelper_<FactoryBase<TClass,ClassName>,ClassName> FactoryBase<TClass,ClassName>::factory_helper_;
FACTORY_CLASS(Test) {
public:
Test(){}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
try {
Test* test = (Test*) Factory::createObject("Test");
}
catch(const std::exception& ex) {
std::cerr << "caught std::exception: "<< ex.what() << std::endl;
}
#ifdef _MSC_VER
system("pause");
#endif
return 0;
}
The problem is not related to initialization order, but rather to template instantiation.
Templated code is instantiated on demand, that is, the compiler will not instantiate any templated code that is not used in your program. In particular, in your case the static class member FactoryBase<>::factory_helper_ is not being instantiated and thus it does not exist in the final binary, it does not register itself... (you can check this with 'nm' from the gnu toolchain, that will show the list of symbols present in your executable)
Try changing the FactoryBase constructor to this:
template <class TClass, const char* ClassName>
class FactoryBase {
//...
FactoryBase(){
factory_helper_;
}
//...
};
This will force the compiler into actually instantiating the static member in the binary and you should be set. There is no need to create an empty method and calling it.
EDIT: As an answer to the comment, towards the end of paragraph §14.7.1[temp.inst]/1 in the current standard:
Unless a member of a class template or
a member template has been explicitly
instantiated or explicitly
specialized, the specialization of the
member is implicitly instantiated when
the specialization is referenced in a
context that requires the member
definition to exist; in particular,
the initialization (and any associated
side-effects) of a static data member
does not occur unless the static data
member is itself used in a way that
requires the definition of the static
data member to exist.
#define FACTORY_CLASS(classtype) \
class classtype; \
extern const char classtype##_name_[] = #classtype; \
template detail_::registerHelper_<FactoryBase<classtype,classtype##_name_>,classtype##_name_> FactoryBase<classtype,classtype##_name_>::factory_helper_; \
class classtype : FactoryBase<classtype,classtype##_name_>
explicitly instantiating factory_helper_ fixed the issue.
I have a template class that is only valid for couple of template parameters:
doIt.h:
// only int and float are valid T
template <typename T>
class doer
{
public:
void doIt();
}
I want to hide the implementation inside the .cpp file (for faster compile and also because its proprietary):
doIt.cpp:
template <>
void doer<T>::doIt() { /* how to do it */ }
... and use it as follows: use.cpp:
int main( int, char** )
{
doer<int>::doIt()
}
The above fails to link because the implementation of void doer::doIt(void) was never in scope at the place where it was called.
I can force the code to be generated into doItv2.obj, as follows:
doIt_v2.cpp:
template <>
void doer<T>::doIt() { /* how to do it */ }
doer<int> a;
doer<real> b;
but this causes a variety of headaches (dynamic memory allocation before main is entered) and I actually don't want to make an instance -- I just want the object code for the template instantiations to be generated.
Any ideas?
See the article How to Organize Template Source Code. I think you are after the second method described there: explicit template instantiation.