Reducing number of template arguments for class - c++

Question

I have a method and two classes defined like this:
template<template<class X> class T>
void doSomething()
{
T<int> x;
}
template <class T>
class ClassWithOneArg
{
T t;
};
template <class T1, class T2>
class ClassWithTwoArgs
{
T1 t1;
T2 t2;
};
I can now
doSomething<ClassWithOneArg>();
but I cannot
doSomething<ClassWithTwoArgs>();
However, I'd like to pass ClassWithTwoArgs to doSomething, where T2 = double.
The only method I found is to create
template <class T1>
class ClassWithTwoArgs_Child
: public ClassWithTwoArgs<T1, double>
{
};
and then
doSomething<ClassWithTwoArgs_Child>();
This works, but in my concrete case all classes require a constructor argument and thus I have to create a constructor with this argument also in the _Child-class and pass it to the base which I really want to avoid.
Do you have an idea how to do that?
Thanks a lot!

Answer 1

Indirection is a solution. Instead of a template template parameter you pass a "meta function" -- a function that maps one type to another in form of a struct with a nested class template:
struct mf1 {
template<class Arg1>
struct eval {
typedef ClassTemplateWithOneArg<Arg1> type;
};
};
template<class Arg2>
struct mf2 {
template<class Arg1>
struct eval {
typedef ClassTemplateWithTwoArgs<Arg1,Arg2> type;
};
};
template<class MetaFunc>
void do_something()
{
typedef typename MetaFunc::template eval<int>::type clazztype;
clazztype x;
}
void foo() {
do_something<mf1>();
do_something<mf2<double> >();
}
In C++0x this could be reduced to a "template typedef":
template<class Arg1>
using NewClassTemplate = ClassTemplateWithTwoArgs<Arg1,double>;
which allows you to pass NewClassTemplate as a template template argument which also accepts only one template parameter.

Answer 2

There is no generic solution. Your best bet is
template<class T>
void doSomething()
{
T x;
}
template <class T>
class ClassWithOneArg
{
T t;
};
template <class T1, class T2 = double>
class ClassWithTwoArgs
{
T1 t1;
T2 t2;
};
int main(){
doSomething<ClassWithOneArg<int>>();
doSomething<ClassWithTwoArgs<int, double> >();
}

Answer 3

It seems that what you are after is similar to the rebinding of allocators (given an allocator, containers need to be able to produce an allocator for a different type - e.g std::list<int> might need a allocator<list_node<int> > from allocator<int>.
However, the class templates would have to be modified for this.
template<class T>
void doSomething(const T&)
{
typename T::template rebind_1st<int>::type x;
}
template <class T>
class ClassWithOneArg
{
T t;
public:
template <class U>
struct rebind_1st { typedef ClassWithOneArg<U> type; };
};
template <class T1, class T2>
class ClassWithTwoArgs
{
T1 t1;
T2 t2;
public:
template <class U>
struct rebind_1st { typedef ClassWithTwoArgs<U, T2> type; };
};
int main()
{
doSomething(ClassWithOneArg<char>());
doSomething(ClassWithTwoArgs<char, double>() );
}

Answer 4

Assuming you want declare template instantiations of the same class with a different type for the first template parameter, it appears a version of visitor's code is possible that doesn't require modifying original classes.
template <class T, class NewFirstArg>
struct rebind_1st;
template <template <class> class T, class Arg1, class NewFirstArg>
struct rebind_1st<T<Arg1>, NewFirstArg>
{
typedef T<NewFirstArg> type;
};
template <template <class, class> class T, class Arg1, class Arg2, class NewFirstArg>
struct rebind_1st<T<Arg1, Arg2>, NewFirstArg>
{
typedef T<NewFirstArg, Arg2> type;
};
template <class T>
void foo()
{
typename rebind_1st<T, int>::type x;
(void)x;
}
template <class T>
struct One{};
template <class T1, class T2>
struct Two{};
int main()
{
foo<One<char> >();
foo<Two<char, double> >();
}

Answer 5

This works with MSVC:
template<class T>
void doSomething()
{
T x;
}
// class definitions omitted...
void test() {
doSomething<ClassWithOneArg<int> >();
doSomething<ClassWIthTwoArgs<int, double> >();
}
I do not fully understand why you want to define the first parameter of your template template parameter to be int inside of doSomething. Looks like a "template smell" to me, since doSomething has to know a lot about its template template parameter.
Wouldn't it be cleaner to call doSomething the way i proposed? (But obviously i don't know the context of your calls).