I'm going to outline my problem in detail to explain what I'm trying to achieve, the question is in the last paragraph if you wish to ignore the details of my problem.
I have a problem with a class design in which I wish to pass a value of any type into push() and pop() functions which will convert the value passed into a string representation that will be appended to a string inside the class, effectively creating a stream of data. The reverse will occur for pop(), taking the stream and converting several bytes at the front of the stream back into a specified type.
Making push() and pop() templates tied with stringstream is an obvious solution. However, I wish to use this functionality inside a DLL in which I can change the way the string is stored (encryption or compression, for example) without recompilation of clients. A template of type T would need to be recompiled if the algorithm changes.
My next idea was to just use functions such as pushByte(), pushInt(), popByte(), popInt() etc. This would allow me to change the implementation without recompilation of clients, since they rely only on a static interface. This would be fine. However, it isn't so flexible. If a value was changed from a byte to a short, for example, all instances of pushByte() corresponding to that value would need to be changed to pushShort(), similarly for popByte() to popShort(). Overloading pop() and push() to combat this would cause conflictions in types (causing explicit casting, which would end up causing the same problem anyway).
With the above ideas, I could create a working class. However, I wondered how specialized templates are compiled. If I created push<byte>() and push<short>(), it would be a type specific overload, and the change from byte to short would automatically switch the template used, which would be ideal.
Now, my question is, if I used specialized templates only to simulate this kind of overloading (without a template of type T), would all specializations compile into my DLL allowing me to dispatch a new implementation without client recompilation? Or are specialized templates selected or dropped in the same way as a template of type T at client compilation time?
First of all, you can't just have specialized templates without a base template to specialize. It's just not allowed. You have to start with a template, then you can provide specializations of it.
You can explicitly instantiate a template over an arbitrary set of types, and have all those instantiations compiled into your DLL, but I'm not sure this will really accomplish much for you. Ultimately, templates are basically a compile-time form of polymorphism, and you seem to need (at least a limited form of) run-time polymorphism.
I'd probably just use overloading. The problem that I'd guess you're talking about arises with something on the order of:
int a;
byte b;
a = pop();
b = pop();
Where you'd basically just be overloading pop on the return type (which, as we all know, isn't allowed). I'd avoid that pretty simply -- instead of returning the value, pass a reference to the value to be modified:
int a;
byte b;
pop(a);
pop(b);
This not only lets overload resolution work, but at least to me looks cleaner as well (though maybe I've just written too much assembly language, so I'm accustomed to things like "pop ax").
It sounds like you have 2 opposing factors:
You want your clients to be able to push/pop/etc. every numeric type. Templates seem like a natural solution, but this is at odds with a consistent (only needs to be compiled once) implementation.
You don't want your clients to have to recompile when you change implementation aspects. The pimpl idiom seems like a natural solution, but this is at odds with a generic (works with any type) implementation.
From your description, it sounds like you only care about numeric types, not arbitrary T's. You can declare specializations of your template for each of them explicitly in a header file, and define them in a source file, and clients will use the specializations you've defined rather than compiling their own. The specializations are a form of compile time polymorphism. Now you can combine it with runtime polymorphism -- implement the specializations in terms of an implementation class that is type agnostic. Your implementation class could use boost::variant to do this since you know the range of possible T's ahead of time (boost::variant<int, short, long, ...>). If boost isn't an option for you, you can come up with a similar scheme yourself so long as you have a finite number of Ts you care about.
Related
I have code where, conceptually, my input is some container of Foo objects. The code "processes" these objects one by one, and the desired result is to fill up a container of FooProduct result objects.
I only need a single pass through the input container. The "processing" is stateful (this isn't an std::transform()) and the number of result objects is independent of the number of input objects.
Offhand, I could see two obvious ways to define the API here.
The easiest way to do this is to hardcode a specific type of container. For example, I could decide I'm expecting vector parameters, e.g.:
void ProcessContainerOfFoos(const std::vector<Foo>& in, std::vector<FooProduct>&out);
But, I don't really have any reason to limit client code to a particular type of container. Instead of constraining the parameter types specifically to vector, I could make the method generic and use iterators as template parameters:
/**
* #tparam Foo_InputIterator_T An input iterator giving objects of type Foo.
* #tparam FooProduct_OutputIterator_T An output iterator writing objects
* of type FooProduct.
*/
template<typename Foo_InputIterator_T, typename FooProduct_OutputIterator_T >
void ProcessContainerOfFoos(Foo_InputIterator_T first, Foo_InputIterator_T last,
FooProduct_OutputIterator_T out);
I'm debating between these two formulations.
Considerations
To me, the first code seems to me to be "easier" and the second seems "more correct":
Non-template types make the signature clearer; I don't need to explain in the documentation what types to use and what the constraints on the template parameter are.
Without templates I can hide the implementation in the .cpp file; with templates I'll need to expose the implementation in a header file, forcing client code to include anything I need for the actual processing logic.
The templated version feels like it expresses my intention more clearly, because I'd rather be indifferent to what container type is used.
The templated version is more flexible and testable - for example, in my code I might be using some custom data structure MySuperEfficientVector , but I'd still be able to test MyFooProcessor without any dependency on the custom class.
Beyond subjective choice given these considerations, is there a major reason to choose one of these over the other? Likewise, is there a better way to construct this API which I'm missing?
Besides the considerations that you've already listed:
The template version allows the client code to pass any iterator
range, for example a sub-range or reverse iterators, not just an entire container from begin to end.
The template version allows passing value types other than Foo. For this to be useful, the processing must be generic of course.
If the template works with only specific value type and the user tries to use iterators to wrong type, the error message might not be very descriptive of their mistake. If this is a concern, you can give the user a better error using type traits: static_assert(std::is_same<Iter::value_type, Foo>::value, "I want my Foo"); Until concepts proposal is added to the standard, there is no good way to communicate the requirements of a template type in the signature to the user.
There is also the option to provide both functions. The hard coded one can delegate to the templated version. This gives you the advantages of both versions at the expense of bloating your api.
It depends. If this function is going to be used with vectors for the time beeing why bother?
I suggest doing templated version only when it becomes necessary. Predicting such things in advance is hard.
Will it be possible to specialize std::optional for user-defined types? If not, is it too late to propose this to the standard?
My use case for this is an integer-like class that represents a value within a range. For instance, you could have an integer that lies somewhere in the range [0, 10]. Many of my applications are sensitive to even a single byte of overhead, so I would be unable to use a non-specialized std::optional due to the extra bool. However, a specialization for std::optional would be trivial for an integer that has a range smaller than its underlying type. We could simply store the value 11 in my example. This should provide no space or time overhead over a non-optional value.
Am I allowed to create this specialization in namespace std?
The general rule in 17.6.4.2.1 [namespace.std]/1 applies:
A program may add a template specialization for any standard library template to namespace std only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and the specialization meets the standard library requirements for the original template and is not explicitly
prohibited.
So I would say it's allowed.
N.B. optional will not be part of the C++14 standard, it will be included in a separate Technical Specification on library fundamentals, so there is time to change the rule if my interpretation is wrong.
If you are after a library that efficiently packs the value and the "no-value" flag into one memory location, I recommend looking at compact_optional. It does exactly this.
It does not specialize boost::optional or std::experimental::optional but it can wrap them inside, giving you a uniform interface, with optimizations where possible and a fallback to 'classical' optional where needed.
I've asked about the same thing, regarding specializing optional<bool> and optional<tribool> among other examples, to only use one byte. While the "legality" of doing such things was not under discussion, I do think that one should not, in theory, be allowed to specialize optional<T> in contrast to eg.: hash (which is explicitly allowed).
I don't have the logs with me but part of the rationale is that the interface treats access to the data as access to a pointer or reference, meaning that if you use a different data structure in the internals, some of the invariants of access might change; not to mention providing the interface with access to the data might require something like reinterpret_cast<(some_reference_type)>. Using a uint8_t to store a optional-bool, for example, would impose several extra requirements on the interface of optional<bool> that are different to the ones of optional<T>. What should the return type of operator* be, for example?
Basically, I'm guessing the idea is to avoid the whole vector<bool> fiasco again.
In your example, it might not be too bad, as the access type is still your_integer_type& (or pointer). But in that case, simply designing your integer type to allow for a "zombie" or "undetermined" value instead of relying on optional<> to do the job for you, with its extra overhead and requirements, might be the safest choice.
Make it easy to opt-in to space savings
I have decided that this is a useful thing to do, but a full specialization is a little more work than necessary (for instance, getting operator= correct).
I have posted on the Boost mailing list a way to simplify the task of specializing, especially when you only want to specialize some instantiations of a class template.
http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/optional-Specializing-optional-to-save-space-td4680362.html
My current interface involves a special tag type used to 'unlock' access to particular functions. I have creatively named this type optional_tag. Only optional can construct an optional_tag. For a type to opt-in to a space-efficient representation, it needs the following member functions:
T(optional_tag) constructs an uninitialized value
initialize(optional_tag, Args && ...) constructs an object when there may be one in existence already
uninitialize(optional_tag) destroys the contained object
is_initialized(optional_tag) checks whether the object is currently in an initialized state
By always requiring the optional_tag parameter, we do not limit any function signatures. This is why, for instance, we cannot use operator bool() as the test, because the type may want that operator for other reasons.
An advantage of this over some other possible methods of implementing it is that you can make it work with any type that can naturally support such a state. It does not add any requirements such as having a move constructor.
You can see a full code implementation of the idea at
https://bitbucket.org/davidstone/bounded_integer/src/8c5e7567f0d8b3a04cc98142060a020b58b2a00f/bounded_integer/detail/optional/optional.hpp?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default
and for a class using the specialization:
https://bitbucket.org/davidstone/bounded_integer/src/8c5e7567f0d8b3a04cc98142060a020b58b2a00f/bounded_integer/detail/class.hpp?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default
(lines 220 through 242)
An alternative approach
This is in contrast to my previous implementation, which required users to specialize a class template. You can see the old version here:
https://bitbucket.org/davidstone/bounded_integer/src/2defec41add2079ba023c2c6d118ed8a274423c8/bounded_integer/detail/optional/optional.hpp
and
https://bitbucket.org/davidstone/bounded_integer/src/2defec41add2079ba023c2c6d118ed8a274423c8/bounded_integer/detail/optional/specialization.hpp
The problem with this approach is that it is simply more work for the user. Rather than adding four member functions, the user must go into a new namespace and specialize a template.
In practice, all specializations would have an in_place_t constructor that forwards all arguments to the underlying type. The optional_tag approach, on the other hand, can just use the underlying type's constructors directly.
In the specialize optional_storage approach, the user also has the responsibility of adding proper reference-qualified overloads of a value function. In the optional_tag approach, we already have the value so we do not have to pull it out.
optional_storage also required standardizing as part of the interface of optional two helper classes, only one of which the user is supposed to specialize (and sometimes delegate their specialization to the other).
The difference between this and compact_optional
compact_optional is a way of saying "Treat this special sentinel value as the type being not present, almost like a NaN". It requires the user to know that the type they are working with has some special sentinel. An easily specializable optional is a way of saying "My type does not need extra space to store the not present state, but that state is not a normal value." It does not require anyone to know about the optimization to take advantage of it; everyone who uses the type gets it for free.
The future
My goal is to get this first into boost::optional, and then part of the std::optional proposal. Until then, you can always use bounded::optional, although it has a few other (intentional) interface differences.
I don't see how allowing or not allowing some particular bit pattern to represent the unengaged state falls under anything the standard covers.
If you were trying to convince a library vendor to do this, it would require an implementation, exhaustive tests to show you haven't inadvertently blown any of the requirements of optional (or accidentally invoked undefined behavior) and extensive benchmarking to show this makes a notable difference in real world (and not just contrived) situations.
Of course, you can do whatever you want to your own code.
I have two questions about templates in C++. Let's imagine I have written a simple List and now I want to use it in my program to store pointers to different object types (A*, B* ... ALot*). My colleague says that for each type there will be generated a dedicated piece of code, even though all pointers in fact have the same size.
If this is true, can somebody explain me why? For example in Java generics have the same purpose as templates for pointers in C++. Generics are only used for pre-compile type checking and are stripped down before compilation. And of course the same byte code is used for everything.
Second question is, will dedicated code be also generated for char and short (considering that they both have the same size and there are no specialization).
If this makes any difference, we are talking about embedded applications.
I have found a similar question, but it did not completely answer my question: Do C++ template classes duplicate code for each pointer type used?
Thanks a lot!
I have two questions about templates in C++. Let's imagine I have written a simple List and now I want to use it in my program to store pointers to different object types (A*, B* ... ALot*). My colleague says that for each type there will be generated a dedicated piece of code, even though all pointers in fact have the same size.
Yes, this is equivalent to having both functions written.
Some linkers will detect the identical functions, and eliminate them. Some libraries are aware that their linker doesn't have this feature, and factor out common code into a single implementation, leaving only a casting wrapper around the common code. Ie, a std::vector<T*> specialization may forward all work to a std::vector<void*> then do casting on the way out.
Now, comdat folding is delicate: it is relatively easy to make functions you think are identical, but end up not being the same, so two functions are generated. As a toy example, you could go off and print the typename via typeid(x).name(). Now each version of the function is distinct, and they cannot be eliminated.
In some cases, you might do something like this thinking that it is a run time property that differs, and hence identical code will be created, and the identical functions eliminated -- but a smart C++ compiler might figure out what you did, use the as-if rule and turn it into a compile-time check, and block not-really-identical functions from being treated as identical.
If this is true, can somebody explain me why? For example in Java generics have the same purpose as templates for pointers in C++. Generics are only used for per-compile type checking and are stripped down before compilation. And of course the same byte code is used for everything.
No, they aren't. Generics are roughly equivalent to the C++ technique of type erasure, such as what std::function<void()> does to store any callable object. In C++, type erasure is often done via templates, but not all uses of templates are type erasure!
The things that C++ does with templates that are not in essence type erasure are generally impossible to do with Java generics.
In C++, you can create a type erased container of pointers using templates, but std::vector doesn't do that -- it creates an actual container of pointers. The advantage to this is that all type checking on the std::vector is done at compile time, so there doesn't have to be any run time checks: a safe type-erased std::vector may require run time type checking and the associated overhead involved.
Second question is, will dedicated code be also generated for char and short (considering that they both have the same size and there are no specialization).
They are distinct types. I can write code that will behave differently with a char or short value. As an example:
std::cout << x << "\n";
with x being a short, this print an integer whose value is x -- with x being a char, this prints the character corresponding to x.
Now, almost all template code exists in header files, and is implicitly inline. While inline doesn't mean what most folk think it means, it does mean that the compiler can hoist the code into the calling context easily.
If this makes any difference, we are talking about embedded applications.
What really makes a difference is what your particular compiler and linker is, and what settings and flags they have active.
The answer is maybe. In general, each instantiation of a
template is a unique type, with a unique implementation, and
will result in a totally independent instance of the code.
Merging the instances is possible, but would be considered
"optimization" (under the "as if" rule), and this optimization
isn't wide spread.
With regards to comparisons with Java, there are several points
to keep in mind:
C++ uses value semantics by default. An std::vector, for
example, will actually insert copies. And whether you're
copying a short or a double does make a difference in the
generated code. In Java, short and double will be boxed,
and the generated code will clone a boxed instance in some way;
cloning doesn't require different code, since it calls a virtual
function of Object, but physically copying does.
C++ is far more powerful than Java. In particular, it allows
comparing things like the address of functions, and it requires
that the functions in different instantiations of templates have
different addresses. Usually, this is not an important point,
and I can easily imagine a compiler with an option which tells
it to ignore this point, and to merge instances which are
identical at the binary level. (I think VC++ has something like
this.)
Another issue is that the implementation of a template in C++
must be present in the header file. In Java, of course,
everything must be present, always, so this issue affects all
classes, not just template. This is, of course, one of the
reasons why Java is not appropriate for large applications. But
it means that you don't want any complicated functionality in a
template; doing so loses one of the major advantages of C++,
compared to Java (and many other languages). In fact, it's not
rare, when implementing complicated functionality in templates,
to have the template inherit from a non-template class which
does most of the implementation in terms of void*. While
implementing large blocks of code in terms of void* is never
fun, it does have the advantage of offering the best of both
worlds to the client: the implementation is hidden in compiled
files, invisible in any way, shape or manner to the client.
I have a library where template classes/functions often access explicit members of the input type, like this:
template <
typename InputType>
bool IsSomethingTrue(
InputType arg1) {
typename InputType::SubType1::SubType2 &a;
//Do something
}
Here, SubType1 and SubType2 are themselves generic types that were used to instantiate InputType. Is there a way to quickly find all the types in the library that are valid to pass in for InputType (likewise for SubType1 and SubType2)? So far I have just been searching the entire code base for classes containing the appropriate members, but the template input names are reused in a lot of places so it is very cumbersome.
From a coding perspective, what is the point of using a template like this when there is only a limited set of valid input types that are probably already defined? Why not just overload this function with explicit types rather than making them generic?
From a coding perspective, what is the point of using a template like this when there is only a limited set of valid input types that are probably already defined? Why not just overload this function with explicit types rather than making them generic?
First of all, because those overload would have the exact same body, or very similar ones. If the body of the function is long enough, having more versions of it is a problem for maintenance. When you need to change the algorithm, you now have to do it N times and hope you won't make mistakes. Most of the times, redundancy is bad.
Moreover, even though now there could be just a few such types which satisfy the syntactic requirements of your function, there may be more in future. Having a function template allows you to let your algorithm work with new types without the need to write a new overload every time one new such type is introduced.
The advantage of using generic types is not on the template end: if you're willing to explicitly name them and edit the template code every time, it's the same.
What happens, however, when you introduce a subclass or variant of a type accepted by the template? No modification needed on the other end.
In other words, when you say that all types are known beforehand, you are excluding code modifications and extensions, which is half the point of using templates.
http://codepad.org/etWqYnn3
I'm working on some form of a reflexion system for C++ despite the many who have warned against. What I'm looking at having is a set of interfaces IScope, IType, IMember, IMonikerClient and a wrapper class which contains the above say CReflexion. Ignoring all but the member which is the important part here is what I would like to do:
1) Instance the wrapper
2) Determine which type is to be used
3) Instance type
4) Overload the () and [] to access the contained member from outer(the wrapper) in code as easily as it is done when using a std::vector
I find that using 0x I can forward a method call with any type for a parameter. I can't however cast dynamically as cast doesn't take a variable(unless there are ways I am unaware of!)
I linked the rough idea above. I am currently using a switch statement to handle the varying interfaces. I would, and for obvious reasons, like to collapse this. I get type match errors in the switch cases as a cause of the call to the methods compiling against each case where only one of three work for any condition and compiler errors are thrown.
Could someone suggest anything to me here? That is aside from sticking to VARIANT :/
Thanks!
C++, even in "0x land", simply does not expose the kind of information you would need to create something like reflection.
I find that using 0x I can forward a method call with any type for a parameter.
You cannot forward a type as a parameter. You can forward the const-volatile qualifiers on a member, but that's all done in templates, at compile time. No runtime check ever is done when you're using things like forward.
Your template there for operator() is not going to compile unless T is convertable to int*, string*, and A** all at once. Think of templates as a simple find and replace algorithm that generates several functions for you -- the value of T gets replaced with the typename when the template is instantiated, and the function is compiled as normal.
Finally, you can only use dyanmic_cast to cast down the class hierarchy -- casting between the completely unrelated types A B and C isn't going to operate correctly.
You're better off taking the time to rethink your design such that it doesn't use reflection at all. It will probably be a better design anyway, considering even in language with reflection, reflection is most often used to paper over poor designs.