boost.serialization - free version and base class implementation - c++

I have a "generator" class that basically constructs its subclass. To use this thing I simply subclass it and pass it the correct parameters to build the object I want built. I want to serialize these things and there's no good reason to do it for each subclass since all the data is in the base. Here's what I've got as example:
#include <boost/serialization/serialization.hpp>
template < typename T >
struct test_base
{
// works...
//template < typename Archive >
//void serialize(Archive &, unsigned int const)
// {
//}
};
template < typename T >
void f(test_base<T> const&) {}
struct test_derived : test_base<int>
{
};
namespace boost { namespace serialization {
template < typename Archive, typename T >
void serialize(Archive &, test_base<T> &, unsigned int const)
{
}
}}
#include <boost/archive/binary_oarchive.hpp>
#include <sstream>
int main()
{
int x = 5;
test_derived d;
//boost::serialization::serialize(x, d, 54); // <- works.
std::ostringstream str;
boost::archive::binary_oarchive out(str);
out & d; // no worky.
}
I want the free version to work if possible. Is it?
Version above pukes up error about serialize not being a member of test_derived.

Clarification why the problem happens:
boost::serialization has to ways of implementing the serialize function. As class method or (in your case) the non-intrusive way of defining a function in the boost::serialization namespace.
So the compiler has to somehow decide which implementation to choose. For that reason boost has a 'default' implementation of the boost::serialization::serialize template function.
Signature:
template<class Archive, class T>
inline void serialize(Archive & ar, T & t, const BOOST_PFTO unsigned int file_version)
Within that function there is a call to T::serialize(...). So when you don't want the intusive version you have to override the boost::serialization::serialize function with something more explicit than the default function-template.
Now the problem: In your case the compiler has to decide if it
a) chooses the version where a parameter has to be casted implicit (test_derived& to test_base&)
b) use the generic function without casting (T is test_derived&)
You want the compiler to use variant a) but the compiler prefers b)
Solution:
I don't know a really good solution. I think i would go with a macro which generates implementations of serialize(...) with the explicit type.
If that isn't a possible solution for you, you could also tell the compiler more explicit what to call:
out & *((test_base<int>*)&d);
and wrap it in some helper function (because no one wants to look at such code all the day)
I hope that is a clear description and helps
In case my explanation was not clear, here is an example:
#include <iostream>
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base()
{
}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
virtual ~Derived()
{
}
};
void foo(Base& bar)
{
std::cout << "special" << std::endl;
}
template<typename T>
void foo(T& bar)
{
std::cout << "generic" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
Derived derived;
foo(derived); // => call to generic implementation
foo(*((Base*) &bla)); // => call to special
return 0;
}

Related

C++20 best way to convert abstract class (interface) and mixins into concept

I used to define my template requirement through abstract class, e.g.
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
/// Generic interface
template<typename A, typename B>
struct Interface {
virtual A callback_A(const std::vector<A>& va) = 0;
virtual const B& callback_B() = 0;
};
/// Mixin style, used to "compose" using inheritance at one level, no virtual
struct PRNG_mt64 {
std::mt19937_64 prng;
explicit PRNG_mt64(size_t seed) : prng(seed) {};
};
/// Our implementation
template<typename A>
struct Implem :
public Interface<A, std::string>,
public PRNG_mt64 {
std::string my_string{"world"};
explicit Implem(size_t seed) : PRNG_mt64(seed) {}
A callback_A(const std::vector<A>& a) override { return a.front(); }
const std::string& callback_B() override { return my_string; }
};
/// Function using our type. Verification of the interface is perform "inside" the function
template<typename T>
void use_type(T& t) {
auto& strings = static_cast<Interface<std::string, std::string>&>(t);
std::cout << strings.callback_A({"hello"}) << " " << strings.callback_B() << std::endl;
auto& prng = static_cast<PRNG_mt64&>(t).prng;
std::uniform_real_distribution<double> dis(0.0, 1.0);
std::cout << dis(prng) << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
size_t seed = std::random_device()();
Implem<std::string> my_impl(seed);
use_type(my_impl);
}
One benefit of using the asbtract class is the clear specification of the interface, easily readable. Also, Implem has to confom to it (we cannot forget the pure virtual).
A problem is that the interface requirement is hidden in the static cast (that comes from my real use case where a composite "state" is used by several polymorphic components - each component can cast the state to only see what it needs to see). This is "solved" by concepts (see below).
Another one is that we are using the virtual mechanism when we have no dynamic polymorphism at all, so I would like to get rid of them. What is the best way to convert this "interface" into concept?
I came up with this:
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
/// Concept "Interface" instead of abstract class
template<typename I, typename A, typename B>
concept Interface = requires(I& impl){
requires requires(const std::vector<A>& va){{ impl.callback_A(va) }->std::same_as<A>; };
{ impl.callback_B() } -> std::same_as<const B&>;
};
/// Mixin style, used to "compose" using inheritance at one level, no virtual
struct PRNG_mt64 {
std::mt19937_64 prng;
explicit PRNG_mt64(size_t seed) : prng(seed) {};
};
/// Our implementation
template<typename A>
struct Implem : public PRNG_mt64 {
std::string my_string{"world"};
/// HERE: requires in the constructor to "force" interface. Can we do better?
explicit Implem(size_t seed) requires(Interface<Implem<A>, A, std::string>): PRNG_mt64(seed) {}
A callback_A(const std::vector<A>& a) { return a.front(); }
const std::string& callback_B() { return my_string; }
};
/// Function using our type. Verification of the interface is now "public"
template<Interface<std::string, std::string> T>
void use_type(T& t) {
std::cout << t.callback_A({"hello"}) << " " << t.callback_B() << std::endl;
auto& prng = static_cast<PRNG_mt64&>(t).prng;
std::uniform_real_distribution<double> dis(0.0, 1.0);
std::cout << dis(prng) << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
size_t seed = std::random_device()();
Implem<std::string> my_impl(seed);
use_type(my_impl);
}
Questions:
Is that actually the thing to do in the first place? I saw several posts on the internet explaning concepts, but they are always so shallow that I'm afraid I'll miss something regarding perfect forwarding, move, etc...
I used a requires requires clause to keep function arguments close to their usage (useful when having many methods). However, the "interface" information is now hard to read: can we do better?
Also, the fact that Implem implements the interface is now the part that is "hidden" inside the class. Can we make that more "public" without having to write another class with CRTP, or limiting the boilerplate code as much as possible?
Can we do better for the "mixin" part PRNG_mt64? Ideally, turning this into a concept?
Thank you!
Your pre-C++20 approach is pretty bad, but at least it sounds like you understand the problems with it. Namely, you're paying 8 bytes for a vptr when you don't need it; and then strings.callback_B() is paying the cost of a virtual call even though you could be calling t.callback_B() directly.
Finally (this is relevant, I promise), by funneling everything through the base-class reference strings, you're taking away Implem's ability to craft a helpful overload set. I'll show you a simpler example:
struct Interface {
virtual int lengthOf(const std::string&) = 0;
};
struct Impl : Interface {
int lengthOf(const std::string& s) override { return s.size(); }
int lengthOf(const char *p) { return strlen(p); }
};
template<class T>
void example(T& t) {
Interface& interface = t;
static_assert(!std::same_as<decltype(interface), decltype(t)>); // Interface& versus Impl&
int x = interface.lengthOf("hello world"); // wastes time constructing a std::string
int y = t.lengthOf("hello world"); // does not construct a std::string
}
int main() { Impl impl; example(impl); }
The generic-programming approach would look like this, in C++20:
template<class T>
concept Interface = requires (T& t, const std::string& s) {
{ t.lengthOf(s) } -> convertible_to<int>;
};
struct Impl {
int lengthOf(const std::string& s) override { return s.size(); }
int lengthOf(const char *p) { return strlen(p); }
};
static_assert(Interface<Impl>); // sanity check
template<Interface T>
void example(T& t) {
Interface auto& interface = t;
static_assert(std::same_as<decltype(interface), decltype(t)>); // now both variables are Impl&
int x = interface.lengthOf("hello world"); // does not construct a std::string
int y = t.lengthOf("hello world"); // does not construct a std::string
}
int main() { Impl impl; example(impl); }
Notice that there is no way at all to get back the "funneling" effect you had with the base-class approach. Now there is no base class, the interface variable itself is still statically a reference to an Impl, and calling lengthOf will always consider the full overload set provided by the Impl. This is a good thing for performance — I think it's a good thing in general — but it is radically different from your old approach, so, be careful!
For your callback_A/B example specifically, your concept would look like
template<class T, class A, class B>
concept Interface = requires (T& impl, const std::vector<A>& va) {
{ impl.callback_A(va) } -> std::same_as<A>;
{ impl.callback_B() } -> std::same_as<const B&>;
};
In real life I would very strongly recommend changing those same_ases to convertible_tos instead. But this code is already very contrived, so let's not worry about that.
In C++17 and earlier, the equivalent "concept" (type-trait) definition would look like this (complete working example in Godbolt). Here I've used a macro DV to shorten the boilerplate; I wouldn't actually do that in real life.
#define DV(Type) std::declval<Type>()
template<class T, class A, class B, class>
struct is_Interface : std::false_type {};
template<class T, class A, class B>
struct is_Interface<T, A, B, std::enable_if_t<
std::is_same_v<int, decltype( DV(T&).callback_A(DV(const std::vector<A>&)) )> &&
std::is_same_v<int, decltype( DV(T&).callback_B() )>
>> : std::true_type {};

How to make this specialized function work

Here's the deal. I've looked on this forum and I didn't find the information I'm searching for or I'm probably not able to repeat it for my problem. I have a class Table which is generic and I have a class named MyString.
template <typename typeGen, int DIM>
class Table {
public:
TableauGenerique() : index_(0) { //On initialise courant à 0
}
void add(typeGen type);
private:
typeGen tableGen_[DIM];
int index_;
};
My problem is with the add function.
I sometimes have to do this in the main.cpp: (which works well)
Table <float,6> tabFloat;
tabFloat.add(1.6564);
and at one point, I need to do this which doesn't work because I need to specialize the add function to create an object of MyString, to pass it the string and then store the object in the array (tableGen) :
TableauGenerique <MyString,4> tabString;
So I tried this (after the class), without success.
template <typename typeGen, int DIM>
void Table<typeGen,DIM>::add(typeGen type){ //Which is the generic one for float or ints
if(index_ < DIM) {
tableGen_[courant_] = type;
index_++;
}
}
template <class typeGen, int DIM>
void Table<typeGen,DIM>::add<string>(typeGen type) { //(line 75) Which is the specific or specialized function for myString
MyString str(type);
if(index_ < DIM) {
tableGen_[courant_] = str;
index_++;
}
}
So, How can I make this work because it doesn't compile at all, saying: line75 : error: expected initializer before '<' token and in the main it says not matching function to call Table::add(const char[6]),
I hope everything is clear enough. Let me know if somethings is unclear.
Thank you very much for your help !
template <class typeGen, int DIM>
void Table<typeGen,DIM>::add<string>(typeGen type)
You're trying to specialize add() when in fact it is not a function template to begin with. How do you expect it to work?
You probably meant: (specialization of the class)
template <int DIM>
void Table<string,DIM>::add(string type)
But then this is allowed only if you specialize the class itself. Without specializing the class, the above code would give compilation error!
EDIT:
You can read these online tutorials:
Introduction to C++ Templates
14.5 — Class template specialization
Template Specialization and Partial Template Specialization
Explicit specialization (C++ only)
If you can control the code of the MyString class, you can provide constructors that act as implicit conversions from float to MyString. An example:
#include <string>
#include <sstream>
#include <iostream>
class MyString {
public:
MyString(float number) {
std::stringstream buffer;
buffer << number;
value = buffer.str();
}
void print() {
std::cout << value << std::endl;
}
private:
std::string value;
};
template <class T>
class Foo {
public:
void DoStuff(T item) {
item.print();
}
};
int main() {
Foo<MyString> foo;
foo.DoStuff(1.342); // implicitly converts float to MyString
return 0;
}
This way, you do not need any specialization of the add method. However, implicit conversions are tricky, and you have be careful not to invoke them accidentally, and they may create ambiguities.
EDIT: Upon a second thought, my suggestion below is basically equivalent to
Table<MyString,4> tabString;
tabString.add(MyString("whatever"));
and therefore excessive and/or does not solve the problem. Feel free to ignore :)
I would extend the class Table with a generic method to add something from which you can construct an object of the desired type:
template <typename typeGen, int DIM>
class Table {
public:
Table() : index_(0) {}
void add(typeGen type);
// The additional method
template<typename T> void add(const T& src);
private:
typeGen tableGen_[DIM];
int index_;
};
template<typename typeGen, int DIM>
template<typename T>
void Table<typeGen,DIM>::add(const T& src) {
if(index_ < DIM) {
tableGen_[courant_] = typeGen(src);
index_++;
}
}
Note construction of a temporary typeGen object before the assignment.
Assuming that MyString object can be constructed from a string literal, i.e. from const char*, you can then use it as following:
Table<MyString,4> tabString;
tabString.add("whatever");
or if the above assumption is wrong, the following should probably work (because you constructed a MyString instance from a string instance):
tabString.add(string("whatever"));

C++ - boost::any serialization

As far as I understand, there is no serialization (boost::serialization, actually) support for boost::any placeholder.
Does someone know if there is a way to serialize a custom boost::any entity?
The problem here is obvious: boost::any uses template-based placeholders to store objects and typeid to check if boost::any_cast is appropriate.
So, there is a custom abstract superclass placeholder and custom template-based derived classes, which are created the following way:
template <T> custom_placeholder : public placeholder {
virtual std::type_info type() const { return typeid(T); }
virtual ...
};
Obviously, this brings some troubles when even thinking about serializing this stuff. Maybe someone knows some trick to make such kind of serialization (and of course, proper deserialization)?
Thank you
If you want to stick with boost::any i am not sure but you can write your own "boost::any". I'm using this code for proxy methods to pass the parameters.
#include <iostream>
#include <boost\smart_ptr\scoped_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/serialization/access.hpp>
#include <boost/serialization/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/archive/text_oarchive.hpp>
#include <boost/archive/text_iarchive.hpp>
#include <boost/serialization/export.hpp>
#include <sstream>
class my_placeholder
{
public:
virtual ~my_placeholder(){}
my_placeholder(){}
private:
friend class boost::serialization::access;
template<class Archive>
void serialize(Archive & ar, const unsigned int version)
{
// serialize base class information
//ar & boost::serialization::base_object<bus_stop>(*this);
//ar & m_placeholder;
}
};
template<typename T>
class my_derivedplaceholder:
public my_placeholder
{
public:
my_derivedplaceholder()
{
}
my_derivedplaceholder(T &value)
{
m_value=value;
}
T m_value;
private:
friend class boost::serialization::access;
template<class Archive>
void serialize(Archive & ar, const unsigned int version)
{
// serialize base class information
ar & boost::serialization::base_object<my_placeholder>(*this);
ar & m_value;
}
};
BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT_GUID(my_derivedplaceholder<int>, "p<int>");
class my_any
{
public:
my_any()
{
}
template<typename T>
my_any(const T &value)
{
m_placeholder.reset(new my_derivedplaceholder<T>(const_cast<T&>(value)));
}
template<typename T>
void operator=(const T &value)
{
m_placeholder.reset(new my_derivedplaceholder<T>(const_cast<T&>(value)));
}
protected:
friend class boost::serialization::access;
template<class Archive>
void serialize(Archive & ar, const unsigned int version)
{
// serialize base class information
//ar & boost::serialization::base_object<bus_stop>(*this);
ar & m_placeholder;
}
template<typename T>
friend T my_anycast(my_any &val);
boost::shared_ptr<my_placeholder> m_placeholder;
};
template<typename T>
T my_anycast(my_any &val)
{
boost::shared_ptr<my_derivedplaceholder<T>> concrete=boost::dynamic_pointer_cast<my_derivedplaceholder<T>>(val.m_placeholder);
if (concrete.get()==NULL)
throw std::invalid_argument("Not convertible");
return concrete->m_value;
}
void main()
{
my_any m=10;
int a=my_anycast<int>(m);
std::cout << a << std::endl;
std::stringstream ss,ss2;
boost::archive::text_oarchive oa(ss);
oa << m;
boost::archive::text_iarchive ia(ss);
my_any m2;
ia >> m2;
std::cout << my_anycast<int>(m2) << std::endl;
}
It is not possible at all, at least for arbitrary types. Note that maybe you could serialize using some tricky code (like finding the size of the elements contained in the any), but the any code relies on the compiler statically putting the any type_code and the proper types inside the placeholder. You surely cannot do that in deserialization in C++, as the type that you'd get from the deserialization is not known at compile time (as required by the newly formed boost::any).
The best solution is to build some kind of specialized any type for the exact types of elements you're going to serialize. Then, you can have special cases for the actual type of element being deserialized, but note that each element type serialization/deserialization has to be phisically written as static C++ code.
PD. Some others suggested using boost::variant as a representation of this specialized type holding the exact types you're going to serialize. You need a way of discerning the exact type on deserialization, though (maybe assigning identifiers to types in the variant).
Assuming you have to use boost::any and you cannot switch to variant, a map<type_info const*, string(*)(any)> based solution could get you done.
You have to initialize at runtime such a map with all the types you plan to use. Of course, you can use something along the lines of
template <typename T>
struct any_serializer
{
static string perform(any a)
{
T const& x = any_cast<T const&>(a);
stringstream out;
out << x;
return out.str();
}
};
and populate the map with addresses of any_serializer<T>::perform under the key &typeid(T). You can specialize the class any_serializer and use some (ugly) macros to populate the map.
More difficult is of course the deserialization. I haven't had a look at boost::lexical_cast for a while, perhaps it can provide some help. I am afraid that this is totally problem-dependant. However, you only need one function, which takes a string and returns one any. You may also want to prepend your output string with a custom type identifier.
There is no need to create new class. Try to use xany https://sourceforge.net/projects/extendableany/?source=directory
xany class allows to add new methods to any's existing functionality. By the way there is a example in documentation which does exactly what you want.

pointers as template parameters?

I have a container class, we'll call it
template <class T> CVector { ... }
I want to do something different with this class when T is a pointer type, e.g. something along the lines of:
template <class T*> CVector< SomeWrapperClass<T> >;
where SomeWrapperClass is expecting the type of the pointed to thing as its parameter. Unfortunately, this syntax doesn't quite work and with some digging, I haven't found a good way to get something like this working.
Why do it this way? I want to change, in a very large app, how some of our containers work when the type they're specialized on is a pointer vs. not a pointer - and ideally, i'd like to do it without changing the ~1,000 places in the code where there are things like CVector<Object*> vs CVector<int> or some such - and playing games with partial specializations seemed to be the way to go.
Am I on crack here?
If I understand you correctly, this might do what you want:
template<typename T>
class CVector { ... };
template<typename T>
class CVector<T*> : public CVector< SomeWrapperClass<T> > {
public:
// for all constructors:
CVector(...) : CVector< SomeWrapperClass<T> >(...) {
}
};
It adds an additional layer of inheritance to trick CVector<T*> into being a CVector< SomeWrapperClass<T> >. This might also be useful in case you need to add additional methods to ensure full compatibility between the expected interface for T* and the provided interface for SomeWrapperClass<T>.
This works just fine in C++...
#include <iostream>
template <class T>
class CVector
{
public:
void test() { std::cout << "Not wrapped!\n"; }
};
template <class T>
class CVector<T*>
{
public:
void test() { std::cout << "Wrapped!\n"; }
};
int main()
{
CVector<int> i;
CVector<double> d;
CVector<int*> pi;
CVector<double*> pd;
i.test();
d.test();
pi.test();
pd.test();
}
I don't think you can specialize a class using the syntax you describe... I don't know how that could possibly work. What you can do is specialize the class for pointers and re-implement its guts using the wrapper class around the raw pointers. I'm not sure if it will help, but this article describes specializing templates for pointers.
The Boost type traits library can help you achieve this. Check out the is_pointer type trait.
#include <boost/type_traits.hpp>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
template <class T>
class CVector {
public:
void addValue(const T& t) {
values_.push_back(t);
}
void print() {
typedef boost::integral_constant<bool,
::boost::is_pointer<T>::value> truth_type;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < values_.size(); i++)
doPrint(values_[i], truth_type());
}
private:
void doPrint(const T& t, const boost::false_type&) {
cout << "Not pointer. Value:" << t << endl;
}
void doPrint(const T& t, const boost::true_type&) {
cout << "Pointer. Value: " << *t << endl;
}
std::vector<T> values_;
};
int main() {
CVector<int> integers;
integers.addValue(3);
integers.addValue(5);
integers.print();
CVector<int*> pointers;
int three = 3;
int five = 5;
pointers.addValue(&three);
pointers.addValue(&five);
pointers.print();
}
I don't think templates are quite that flexible.
A very brute force approach would be to specialize for all of your pointer types...which defeats the problem of using templates.
Could you have a different CVector class that is used only for vectors of pointers?
I agree with rlbond's answer. I have modified it a little bit to suit your need. CVector can be a derived class of the CVector itself. You can then use different members and functions for it.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
template <class T>
class CVector
{
public:
void test() { std::cout << "Not wrapped!\n"; }
void testParent() { std::cout << "Parent Called\n";}
};
template <class T>
class CVector<T*>:
public CVector<T>
{
public:
void test(std::string msg) { std::cout << msg; testParent(); }
};
int main()
{
CVector<int> i;
CVector<double> d;
CVector<int*> pi;
CVector<double*> pd;
i.test();
d.test();
pi.test("Hello\n");
pd.test("World\n");
system("pause");
}

C++ template specialization question

I'm trying to implement a generic toString() function that would work on all types. All our internal classes derive from Abstract which includes a signature for toString(). In other words, all our internal classes have in some form, a toString method.
The problem is, the primitive types (int, char, double..) don't have a native toString function. But we do have a utility function that calls the lexical_cast to give back the string value of the primitive. We don't want a whole bunch of if statements depending So I'm trying to create a templated utility class that would do the job.
My first hack at this is the below:
template<class T>
class ObjectToString {
public:
string objectToString(T value) {
iil::stringUtils::StringSp ret(stringUtils::valueToString<T>(value));
return ret;
}
};
template<>
class ObjectToString <Abstract<T>*> {
public:
iil::stringUtils::StringSp objectToString(Abstract<T>* value) {
return iil::stringUtils::StringSp(new std::string("AAAA"));
}
};
The problem now is, since Abstract is a templated class, it needs the template value T. I have no idea how to set that. Could anyone advise?
How about simply providing a specialization for lexical_cast?
template<> string lexical_cast(Abstract* obj)
{
return obj->toString();
}
Isn't your problem much simpler? On all Abstract objects you know what to do, so all you need is to provide overloaded functions for built-in types:
string getAsString(Abstract *obj)
{
return obj->toString();
}
string getAsString(int x)
{
return intToStr(x);
}
string getAsString(double x)
{
return doubleToStr(x);
}
etc, where you implement intToStr() and doubleToStr() as appropriate.
This has been dealt with at length by Matthew Wilson in the form of shims, as described in this Dr Dobb's article, and the books Imperfect C++ and Extended STL. They underlie the technology that allow the FastFormat and Pantheios libraries to deal with argument types generically.
You just don't think in C++ way. C++ already has "toString" that is called operator<< to std::ostream. You need to implement it for your classes.
And if you want to support inheritence, do this:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/lexical_cast.hpp>
#include <string>
class streamable {
public:
virtual void stream(std::ostream &) const = 0;
};
std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &out,streamable const &obj)
{
obj.stream(out);
return out;
}
// Now anything derived from streamable can be written to std::ostream
// For example:
class bar : public streamable {
int x;
int y;
public:
bar(int a,int b) : x(a),y(b){}
virtual void stream(std::ostream &out) const { out<<x<<":"<<y; }
};
int main()
{
bar b(1,3);
std::cout<< b << std::endl;
// and converted to string
std::string str=boost::lexical_cast<std::string>(b);
std::cout<< str <<std::endl;
}
This is C++ way, and as you can see you have boost::lexical_cast for free.
EDIT for your case:
template<typename T>
class Abstract {
public:
virtual void stream(std::ostream &) const = 0;
};
template<typename T>
std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &out,Abstract<T> const &obj)
{
obj.stream(out);
return out;
}
Now if you don't like boost::lexical_cast, implement string_cast as simple as
template<typename T>
std::string string_cast(T const &obj)
{
std::ostringstram ss;
ss<<obj;
return ss.str();
}