Creating an interface for an abstract class template in C++ - c++

I have the code as below. I have a abstract template class Foo and two subclasses (Foo1 and Foo2) which derive from instantiations of the template. I wish to use pointers in my program that can point to either objects of type Foo1 or Foo2, hence I created an interface IFoo.
My problem is I'm not sure how to include functionB in the interface, since it is dependant on the template instantiation. Is it even possible to make functionB accessible via the interface, or am I attempting the impossible?
Thank you very much for your help.
class IFoo {
public:
virtual functionA()=0;
};
template<class T>
class Foo : public IFoo{
public:
functionA(){ do something; };
functionB(T arg){ do something; };
};
class Foo1 : public Foo<int>{
...
};
class Foo2 : public Foo<double>{
...
};

You are actually attempting the impossible.
The very heart of the matter is simple: virtual and template do not mix well.
template is about compile-time code generation. You can think of it as some kind of type-aware macros + a few sprinkled tricks for meta programming.
virtual is about runtime decision, and this require some work.
virtual is usually implemented using a virtual tables (think of a table which lists the methods). The number of methods need be known at compile time and is defined in the base class.
However, with your requirement, we would need a virtual table of infinite size, containing methods for types we haven't seen yet and that will only be defined in the years to come... it's unfortunately impossible.
And if it were possible ?
Well, it just would not make sense. What happens when I call Foo2 with an int ? It's not meant for it! Therefore it breaks the principle that Foo2 implements all the methods from IFoo.
So, it would be better if you stated the real problem, this way we could help you at a design level rather than at a technical level :)

Easiest way is to make your interface templated.
template <class T>
class IFoo {
public:
virtual void functionA()=0;
virtual void functionB(T arg){ do something; };
};
template<class T>
class Foo : public IFoo<T>{
public:
void functionA(){ do something; };
void functionB(T arg){ do something; };
};

Since functionB's argument type must be known in advance, you have only one choice: Make it a type which can hold every possible argument. This is sometimes called a "top type" and the boost libraries have the any type which gets quite close to what a top type would do. Here is what could work:
#include <boost/any.hpp>
#include <iostream>
using namespace boost;
class IFoo {
public:
virtual void functionA()=0;
virtual void functionB(any arg)=0; //<-can hold almost everything
};
template<class T>
class Foo : public IFoo{
public:
void functionA(){ };
void real_functionB(T arg)
{
std::cout << arg << std::endl;
};
// call the real functionB with the actual value in arg
// if there is no T in arg, an exception is thrown!
virtual void functionB(any arg)
{
real_functionB(any_cast<T>(arg));
}
};
int main()
{
Foo<int> f_int;
IFoo &if_int=f_int;
if_int.functionB(10);
Foo<double> f_double;
IFoo &if_double=f_double;
if_int.functionB(10.0);
}
Unfortunately, any_cast does not know about the usual conversions. For example any_cast<double>(any(123)) throws an exception, because it does not even try to convert the integer 123 to a double. If does not care about conversions, because it is impossible to replicate all of them anyway. So there are a couple of limitations, but it is possible to find workarounds if necessary.

I don't think you can get what you want. Think of this if you were to implement your suggestion: if you have a pointer to an IFoo instance and you call functionB(), what type parameter should you give it? The underlying problem is that Foo1::functionB and Foo2::functionB have different signatures and do different things.

You can achieve something comparable by wrapping the IFoo* pointer in a class and exposing the functionality via generic template functions of the non-templated wrapper class:
#include <assert.h>
// interface class
class IFoo {
public:
virtual int type() const = 0; // return an identifier for the template parameter
virtual bool functionA() = 0;
};
// This function returns a unique identifier for each supported T
template <typename T> static int TypeT() { static_assert("not specialized yet"); }
template <> static int TypeT<bool>() { return 0; }
template <> static int TypeT<double>() { return 1; }
//template <> static int TypeT<...>() { ... }
// templated class
template <typename T> class FooT : public IFoo {
public:
int type() const override { return TypeT<T>(); }
bool functionA() override { return true; }
// not in interface
bool functionB(T arg) { return arg == T(); }
};
// function to create an instance of FooT (could also be static function in FooT)
static IFoo* CreateFooT(int type)
{
switch (type)
{
case 0: return new FooT<bool>();
case 1: return new FooT<double>();
//case ...: return new FooT<...>();
default: return nullptr;
}
}
// Non-templated wrapper class
class FooWrapper {
private:
IFoo *pFoo;
public:
FooWrapper(int type) : pFoo(CreateFooT(type)) { assert(pFoo != nullptr); }
~FooWrapper() { delete pFoo; }
bool functionA() { return pFoo->functionA(); }
template <typename T> bool functionB(T arg)
{
if(pFoo->type() != TypeT<T>())
{
assert(pFoo->type() == TypeT<T>());
return false;
}
return static_cast<typename FooT<T>*>(pFoo)->functionB(arg);
}
// fun stuff:
// (const pendants omitted for readability)
bool changeType(int type)
{
delete pFoo;
pFoo = CreateFooT(type);
return pFoo != nullptr;
}
IFoo* Interface() { return pFoo; }
IFoo* operator->() { return pFoo; }
operator IFoo&() { return *pFoo; }
template <typename T> FooT<T> *InterfaceT()
{
if(pFoo->type() != TypeT<T>())
{
assert(pFoo->type() == TypeT<T>());
return nullptr;
}
return static_cast<typename FooT<T>*>(pFoo);
}
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
FooWrapper w1(TypeT<bool>());
FooWrapper w2(TypeT<double>());
w1.functionA(); // ok
w2.functionA(); // ok
w1.functionB(true); // ok
w1.functionB(0.5); // runtime error!
w2.functionB(true); // runtime error!
w2.functionB(0.5); // ok
// fun stuff
w2.changeType(TypeT<bool>()); // older changes will be lost
w2.functionB(true); // -> now ok
w1.Interface()->functionA();
w1->functionA();
IFoo &iref = w1;
iref.functionA();
FooT<bool> *ref = w1.InterfaceT<bool>();
ref->functionB(true);
return 0;
}
It is of course your responsibility to call the functions with the correct types, but you can easily add some error handling.

Related

Provide a pointer to member function to be invoked by the target class without functional

I'm reading a lot of questions (and answers) about function pointers, functors and callbacks but I still have a confusion about which is the right tool for me.
Some of them cannot apply to my scenario because it seems my compiler avr-gcc v5.4.0 does not have C++ standard library (i.e. std::function is not available).
This is my base class:
class Debouncer
{
public:
typedef uint8_t (Debouncer::*debouncer_raw_t) (void);
Debouncer() {}
void setRawFunction(Debouncer::debouncer_raw_t callback) { _raw = callback; }
private:
debouncer_raw_t _raw;
void anotherFunction()
{
uint8_t value = _raw();
// do something
}
}
In my other classes I have:
class Inputs
{
public:
Inputs()
{
_deb.setRawFunction(myRaw);
}
private:
Debouncer _deb;
uint8_t myRaw()
{
return something;
}
}
Of course this won't compile because myRaw is not static.
Anyway, I'm going to try to avoid this because it would break the existing code.
If I'm not wrong, a lot of questions seem to ask the other way around.
Instead I just want to pass the pointer of my member function to my Debouncer class, so it can call _raw() when it needs to.
Here I found this advise to avoid std:: library:
#define CALL_MEMBER_FN(object, ptrToMember) ((object).*(ptrToMember))
void userCode(Fred& fred, FredMemFn p) // Use a typedef for pointer-to-member types
{
int ans = CALL_MEMBER_FN(fred,p)('x', 3.14);
// Would normally be: int ans = (fred.*p)('x', 3.14);
// ...
}
But it seems the other way around. Here the class Fred is my Debouncer.
I don't want to call the Debouncer member, but member of the caller class (i.e. Input::myRaw()).
Would you please help me to understand which is the right tool to achieve such a simple task?
Making a member function virtual is a relatively low-overhead way to have a single pointer (to an object) refer to both the object's data and the correct member function.
class InputsBase
{
// All classes that implement myRaw() should inherit from this class
public:
virtual uint8_t myRaw() = 0;
};
class Inputs : public InputsBase
{
public:
Inputs()
{
_deb.setRawFunction(this);
}
private:
Debouncer _deb;
virtual uint8_t myRaw()
{
return something;
}
}
Your Debouncer can then simply store a pointer to the object in question.
class Debouncer
{
public:
typedef InputsBase* debouncer_raw_t;
Debouncer() {}
void setRawFunction(debouncer_raw_t callback) { _raw = callback; }
private:
debouncer_raw_t _raw;
void anotherFunction()
{
uint8_t value = _raw->myRaw();
// do something
}
}
If you know (or require) each of the classes using Debouncer have a public myRaw() function (or better operator(), or actually anything else), the problem is simpler:
template <typename T>
class Debouncer
{
public:
Debouncer (T* t): _t(t) {}
void anotherFunction()
{
uint8_t value = _t->myRaw();
std::cout << static_cast<int>(value);
}
private:
T* _t;
};
class Inputs
{
public:
Inputs() : _deb(this)
{
// beware, if Debouncer uses its parameter in constructor (like call a method),
// you cannot use initializer list
}
uint8_t myRaw()
{
return 13;
}
void foo()
{
_deb.anotherFunction();
}
private:
Debouncer<Inputs> _deb;
};
int main()
{
Inputs i;
i.foo();
}
This would be preferred solution in C++. See for example standard library <algorithm> - any function taking a predicate or some other callable expects to call it with operator() rathen than having to deal with pointers-to-member-function.
If you don't know what function should be called and you really cannot impose any requirement on the classes, you need to store both a pointer (or reference) to the class and a pointer to the member function. Note that you cannot connect pointers to member functions of different classes, so we need templates once again:
template <typename T, typename Func>
class Debouncer
{
public:
Debouncer (T* t, Func f): _t(t), _f(f) {}
void anotherFunction()
{
uint8_t value = (_t->*_f)(); //I get it now why isocpp asks to use macro here, the syntax is horrible
std::cout << static_cast<int>(value);
}
private:
T* _t;
Func _f;
};
class Inputs
{
public:
Inputs() : _deb(this, &Inputs::myRaw)
{
// beware, if Debouncer uses its parameter in constructor (like call a method),
// you cannot use initializer list
}
uint8_t myRaw()
{
return 13;
}
void foo()
{
_deb.anotherFunction();
}
private:
Debouncer<Inputs, decltype(&Inputs::myRaw)> _deb; //decltype is C++11, you could also declare type like you did in your question
};
int main()
{
Inputs i;
i.foo();
}

C++ Errors declaring Interface with return template

I have a base interface, declaration like this - IBaseTest.h:
#pragma once
template <class T1>
class IBaseTest
{
public:
virtual ~IBaseTest();
virtual T1 DoSomething() = 0;
};
And two children who overrides DoSomething() CBaseTest1 claass in - BaseTest1.h:
#pragma once
#include "IBaseTest.h"
class CBaseTest1: public IBaseTest<int>
{
public:
virtual int DoSomething();
};
BaseTest1.cpp:
#include "BaseTest1.h"
int CBaseTest1::DoSomething()
{
return -1;
}
And CBaseTest2 in - BaseTest2.h
#pragma once
#include "IBaseTest.h"
class CBaseTest2: public IBaseTest<long long>
{
public:
virtual long long DoSomething();
};
BaseTest2.cpp:
#include "BaseTest2.h"
long long CBaseTest2::DoSomething()
{
return -2;
}
So CBaseTest1::DoSomething() overrides return type to int, and CBaseTest2::DoSomething() to long long. Now, i want to use a pointer to the base interface, to work with those classes, and there i have the problem:
#include "IBaseTest.h"
#include "BaseTest1.h"
#include "BaseTest2.h"
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
IBaseTest<T1> * pBase = NULL;
pBase = new CBaseTest1();
cout << pBase->DoSomething() << endl;
pBase = new CBaseTest2();
cout << pBase->DoSomething() << endl;
getchar();
return 0;
}
The problem is i cannot declare IBaseTest<T1> * pBase = NULL; T1 is undefined. If declare the template before _tmain like this:
template <class T1>
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
...
}
I get: error C2988: unrecognizable template declaration/definition
So what do i put here instead of T1?
IBaseTest<??> * pBase = NULL;
The problem is that T1 parameter needs to be known when you instantiate an object of the template class IBaseTest. Technically, IBaseTest<int> and IBaseTest<long long> are two different types without a common base and C++ does not allow you to declare a variable IBaseTest<T1> pBase = NULL; where T1 is determined at runtime. What you are trying to achieve is something that would be possible in a dynamically typed language, but not in C++ because it is statically typed.
However, if you know the expected return type of DoSomething whenever you call that method, you can sort of make your example to work. First, you need to introduce a common base class that is not a template:
#include <typeinfo>
#include <typeindex>
#include <assert.h>
class IDynamicBase {
public:
virtual std::type_index type() const = 0;
virtual void doSomethingVoid(void* output) = 0;
template <typename T>
T doSomething() {
assert(type() == typeid(T));
T result;
doSomethingVoid(&result);
return result;
}
virtual ~IDynamicBase() {}
};
Note that it has a template method called doSomething that takes a type parameter for the return value. This is the method that we will call later.
Now, modify your previous IBaseTest to extend IDynamicBase:
template <class T1>
class IBaseTest : public IDynamicBase
{
public:
std::type_index type() const {return typeid(T1);}
void doSomethingVoid(void* output) {
*(reinterpret_cast<T1*>(output)) = DoSomething();
}
virtual T1 DoSomething() = 0;
virtual ~IBaseTest() {}
};
You don't need to change CBaseTest1 or CBaseTest2.
Finally, you can now write the code in your main function like this:
IDynamicBase* pBase = nullptr;
pBase = new CBaseTest1();
std::cout << pBase->doSomething<int>() << std::endl;
pBase = new CBaseTest2();
std::cout << pBase->doSomething<long long>() << std::endl;
Note that instead of calling pBase->DoSomething(), we now call pBase->doSomething<T>() where T is a type that must be known statically where we call the method and we provide that type at the call site, e.g. pBase->doSomething<int>().
The language does not allows to do directly what you are trying to do. At that point, you should ask yourself if that is the right solution for the problem.
The first approach that might work well assuming that you don't have too much different operations to do for each type would be to simply do the action in the function itself instead of returning type that are not related through inheritance.
class IBaseTest
{
public:
virtual void OutputTo(std::ostream &os) = 0;
};
class CBaseTest1
{
public:
virtual void OutputTo(std::ostream &os) override;
private:
int DoSomething();
};
void CBaseTest1OutputTo(std::ostream &os)
{
os << DoSomething() << std::endl;
}
If you have only a few types but a lot of operation, you might use the visitor pattern instead.
If you mainly have operation that depends on type, you could use:
class IVisitor
{
public:
virtual void Visit(int value) = 0;
virtual void Visit(long value) = 0;
};
Otherwise, use that which is more general
class IVisitor
{
public:
virtual void Visit (CBaseTest1 &test1) = 0;
virtual void Visit (CBaseTest2 &test2) = 0;
};
Then in your classes add an apply function
class IBaseTest
{
public:
virtual void Apply(IVisitor &visitor) = 0;
};
In each derived class, you implement the Apply function:
void CBaseTest1 : public IBaseTest
{
virtual void Apply(IVisitor &visitor) override
{
visitor.Visit(this->DoSomething()); // If you use first IVisitor definition
visitor.Visit(*this); // If you use second definition
};
And for creation purpose, you could have a factory that return the appropriate class from a type tag if you need to create those class from say a file…
One example assuming you want a new object each time:
enum class TypeTag { Integer = 1, LongInteger = 2 };
std::unique_ptr<IBaseTest> MakeObjectForTypeTag(TypeTag typeTag)
{
switch (typeTag)
{
case TypeTag::Integer : return new CBaseTest1();
case TypeTag::LongInteger : return new CBaseTest2();
}
}
So the only time you would do a switch statement is when you are creating an object… You could also use a map or even an array for that...
The right approach depends on your actual problem.
How many CBaseClass* do you have?
Do you expect to add other classes? Often?
How many operations similar to DoSomething() do you have?
How many actions that works on the result of DoSomething do you have?
Do you expect to add other actions? Often?
By responding to those questions, it will be much easier to take the right decision. If the action are stables (and you only have a few one), then specific virtual functions like OutputToabove is more appropriate. But if you have dozen of operation but don't expect much changes to ITestBase class hierarchy, then visitor solution is more appropriate.
And the reason why a given solution is more appropriate in a given context is mainly the maintenance effort when adding classes or actions in the future. You typically want that the most frequent change (adding a class or an action) require les changes everywhere in the code.

Implementing a ReaderWriter class based upon separate stateful Reader and Writer bases

Suppose I have two classes...
We can call the first FooReader and it looks something like this:
class FooReader {
public:
FooReader(const Foo* const foo)
: m_foo(foo) {
}
FooData readFooDataAndAdvance() {
// the point here is that the algorithm is stateful
// and relies upon the m_offset member
return m_foo[m_offset++];
}
private:
const Foo* const m_foo;
size_t m_offset = 0; // used in readFooDataAndAdvance
};
We can call the second FooWriter and it looks something like this:
class FooWriter {
public:
FooWriter(Foo* const foo)
: m_foo(foo) {
}
void writeFooDataAndAdvance(const FooData& foodata) {
// the point here is that the algorithm is stateful
// and relies upon the m_offset member
m_foo[m_offset++] = foodata;
}
private:
Foo* const m_foo;
size_t m_offset = 0;
};
These both work wonderfully and do their job as intended. Now suppose I want to create a FooReaderWriter class. Note that the
I naturally want to say that this new class "is a" FooReader and "is a" FooWriter; the interface is simply the amalgamation of the two classes and the semantics remain the same. I don't want to reimplement perfectly good member functions.
One could model this relationship using inheritance like so:
class FooReaderWriter : public FooReader, public FooWriter { };
This is nice because I get the shared interface, I get the implementation and I nicely model the relationship between the classes. However there are problems:
The Foo* member is duplicated in the base classes. This is a waste of memory.
The m_offset member is separate for each base type, but they need to share it (i.e. calling either readFooDataAndAdvance and writeFooDataAndAdvance should advance the same m_offset member).
I can't use the PIMPL pattern and store m_foo and m_offset in there, because I'd lose the const-ness of the m_foo pointer in the base FooReader class.
Is there anything else I can do to resolve these issues, without reimplementing the functionality contained within those classes?
This seems ready made for the mixin pattern. We have our most base class which just declares the members:
template <class T>
class members {
public:
members(T* f) : m_foo(f) { }
protected:
T* const m_foo;
size_t m_offset = 0;
};
and then we write some wrappers around it to add reading:
template <class T>
struct reader : T {
using T::T;
Foo readAndAdvance() {
return this->m_foo[this->m_offset++];
};
};
and writing:
template <class T>
struct writer : T {
using T::T;
void writeAndAdvance(Foo const& f) {
this->m_foo[this->m_offset++] = f;
}
};
and then you just use those as appropriate:
using FooReader = reader<members<Foo const>>;
using FooWriter = writer<members<Foo>>;
using FooReaderWriter = writer<reader<members<Foo>>>;
CRTP.
template<class Storage>
class FooReaderImpl {
public:
FooData readFooDataAndAdvance() {
// the point here is that the algorithm is stateful
// and relies upon the m_offset member
return get_storage()->m_foo[get_storage()->m_offset++];
}
private:
Storage const* get_storage() const { return static_cast<Storage const*>(this); }
Storage * get_storage() { return static_cast<Storage*>(this); }
};
template<class Storage>
class FooWriterImpl {
public:
void writeFooDataAndAdvance(const FooData& foodata) {
// the point here is that the algorithm is stateful
// and relies upon the m_offset member
get_storage()->m_foo[get_storage()->m_offset++] = foodata;
}
private:
Storage const* get_storage() const { return static_cast<Storage const*>(this); }
Storage * get_storage() { return static_cast<Storage*>(this); }
};
template<class T>
struct storage_with_offset {
T* m_foo = nullptr;
std::size_t m_offset = 0;
};
struct FooReader:
FooReaderImpl<FooReader>,
storage_with_offset<const Foo>
{
FooReader(Foo const* p):
storage_with_offset<const Foo>{p}
{}
};
struct FooWriter:
FooWriterImpl<FooWriter>,
storage_with_offset<Foo>
{
FooWriter(Foo* p):
storage_with_offset<Foo>{p}
{}
};
struct FooReaderWriter:
FooWriterImpl<FooReaderWriter>,
FooReaderImpl<FooReaderWriter>,
storage_with_offset<Foo>
{
FooReaderWriter(Foo const* p):
storage_with_offset<Foo>{p}
{}
};
If you need an abstract interface for runtime polymorphism, inherit FooReaderImpl and FooWriterImpl from them.
Now, FooReaderWriter obeys the ducktype contract of FooReader and FooWriter. So if you use type erasure instead of inheritance, it will qualify for either (at point of use).
I'd be tempted to change them to
using FooReader = std::function<FooData()>;
using FooWriter = std::function<void(FooData const&)>;
and then implement a multi-signature std::function for FooReaderWriter. But I'm strange and a bit unhinged that way.

C++ Templated Virtual Function

Templated virtual member functions are not supported in C++ but I have a scenario where it would be ideal. Im wondering if someone has ideas for ways to accomplish this.
#include <iostream>
class Foo {
public:
virtual void bar(int ){}
// make a clone of my existing data, but with a different policy
virtual Foo* cloneforDB() = 0;
};
struct DiskStorage {
static void store(int x) { std::cout << "DiskStorage:" << x << "\n"; }
};
struct DBStorage {
static void store(int x) { std::cout << "DBStorage:" << x << "\n"; }
};
template<typename Storage>
class FooImpl : public Foo {
public:
FooImpl():m_value(0) {}
template<typename DiffStorage>
FooImpl(const FooImpl<DiffStorage>& copyfrom) {
m_value = copyfrom.m_value;
}
virtual void bar(int x) {
Storage::store(m_value);
std::cout << "FooImpl::bar new value:" << x << "\n";
m_value = x;
}
virtual Foo* cloneforDB() {
FooImpl<DBStorage> * newfoo = new FooImpl<DBStorage>(*this);
return newfoo;
}
int m_value;
};
int main()
{
Foo* foo1 = new FooImpl<DiskStorage>();
foo1->bar(5);
Foo* foo2 = foo1->cloneforDB();
foo2->bar(21);
}
Now if I want to clone the Foo implmemetation, but with a different Storagepolicy, I have to explicitly spell out each such implementation:
cloneforDB()
cloneforDisk()
A template parameter would have simplified that.
Can anyone think of a cleaner way to do this?
Please focus on the idea and not the example, since its obviously a contrived example.
Usually if you want to use a virtual template method, it means that something is wrong in the design of your class hierarchy. The high level reason for that follows.
Template parameters must be known at compile-time, that's their semantics. They are used to guarantee soundness properties of your code.
Virtual functions are used for polymorphism, ie. dynamic dispatching at runtime.
So you cannot mix static properties with runtime dispatching, it does not make sense if you look at the big picture.
Here, the fact that you store something somewhere should not be part of the type of your method, since it's just a behavioral trait, it could change at runtime. So it's wrong to include that information in the type of the method.
That's why C++ does not allow that: you have to rely on polymorphism to achieve such a behavior.
One easy way to go would be to pass a pointer to a Storage object as an argument (a singleton if you just want one object for each class), and work with that pointer in the virtual function.
That way, your type signature does not depend on the specific behavior of your method. And you can change your storage (in this example) policy at runtime, which is really what you should ask for as a good practice.
Sometimes, behavior can be dictated by template parameters (Alexandrescu's policy template parameters for example), but it is at type-level, not method level.
Just use templates all the way:
class Foo {
public:
virtual void bar(int ){}
template <class TargetType>
Foo* clonefor() const;
};
class FooImpl { ... };
template
inline <class TargetType>
Foo* Foo::clonefor() const
{
return new FooImpl<TargetType>(*this);
}
Now call it:
int main()
{
Foo* foo1 = new FooImpl<DiskStorage>();
foo1->bar(5);
Foo* foo2 = foo1->clonefor<DBStorage>();
foo2->bar(21);
}
A trick I have sometimes used to get around this issue is this:
template<typename T>
using retval = std::vector<T const*>;
struct Bob {};
// template type interface in Base:
struct Base {
template<typename T>
retval<T> DoStuff();
virtual ~Base() {};
// Virtual dispatch so children can implement it:
protected:
virtual retval<int> DoIntStuff() = 0;
virtual retval<double> DoDoubleStuff() = 0;
virtual retval<char> DoCharStuff() = 0;
virtual retval<Bob> DoBobStuff() = 0;
};
// forward template interface through the virtual dispatch functions:
template<> retval<int> Base::DoStuff<int>() { return DoIntStuff(); }
template<> retval<double> Base::DoStuff<double>() { return DoDoubleStuff(); }
template<> retval<char> Base::DoStuff<char>() { return DoCharStuff(); }
template<> retval<Bob> Base::DoStuff<Bob>() { return DoBobStuff(); }
// CRTP helper so the virtual functions are implemented in a template:
template<typename Child>
struct BaseHelper: public Base {
private:
// In a real project, ensuring that Child is a child type of Base should be done
// at compile time:
Child* self() { return static_cast<Child*>(this); }
Child const* self() const { return static_cast<Child const*>(this); }
public:
virtual retval<int> DoIntStuff() override final { self()->DoStuff<int>(); }
virtual retval<double> DoDoubleStuff() override final { self()->DoStuff<double>(); }
virtual retval<char> DoCharStuff() override final { self()->DoStuff<char>(); }
virtual retval<Bob> DoBobStuff() override final { self()->DoStuff<Bob>(); }
};
// Warning: if the T in BaseHelper<T> doesn't have a DoStuff, infinite
// recursion results. Code and be written to catch this at compile time,
// and I would if this where a real project.
struct FinalBase: BaseHelper<FinalBase> {
template<typename T>
retval<T> DoStuff() {
retval<T> ret;
return ret;
}
};
where I go from template-based dispatch, to virtual function dispatch, back to template based dispatch.
The interface is templated on the type I want to dispatch on. A finite set of such types are forwarded through a virtual dispatch system, then redispatched at compile time to a single method in the implementation.
I will admit this is annoying, and being able to say "I want this template to be virtual, but only with the following types" would be nice.
The reason why this is useful is that it lets you write type-agnostic template glue code that operates on these methods uniformly without having to do stuff like pass through pointers to methods or the like, or write up type-trait bundles that extract which method to call.

How to simulate virtuality for method template

I have a class hierarchy where I want to introduce a method template that would behave like if it was virtual. For example a simple hierarchy:
class A {
virtual ~A() {}
template<typename T>
void method(T &t) {}
};
class B : public A {
template<typename T>
void method(T &t) {}
};
Then I create object B:
A *a = new B();
I know I can get the type stored in a by typeid(a). How can I call the correct B::method dynamically when I know the type? I could probably have a condition like:
if(typeid(*a)==typeid(B))
static_cast<B*>(a)->method(params);
But I would like to avoid having conditions like that. I was thinking about creating a std::map with typeid as a key, but what would I put as a value?
You can use the "Curiously Recurring Template Pattern"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_pattern
Using this pattern, the base class takes the derived class type as a template parameter, meaning that the base class can cast itself to the derived type in order to call functions in the derived class. It's a sort of compile time implementation of virtual functions, with the added benefit of not having to do a virtual function call.
template<typename DERIVED_TYPE>
class A {
public:
virtual ~A() {}
template<typename T>
void method(T &t) { static_cast<DERIVED_TYPE &>(*this).methodImpl<T>(t); }
};
class B : public A<B>
{
friend class A<B>;
public:
virtual ~B() {}
private:
template<typename T>
void methodImpl(T &t) {}
};
It can then be used like this...
int one = 1;
A<B> *a = new B();
a->method(one);
Is there any common code you could extract and make virtual?
class A {
virtual ~A() {}
template<typename T>
void method(T &t)
{
...
DoSomeWork();
...
}
virtual void DoSomeWork() {}
};
class B : public A {
virtual void DoSomeWork() {}
};
As you may know, you cannot have templates for virtual functions, since the entirety of the virtual functions is part of the class type and must be known in advance. That rules out any simple "arbitrary overriding".
If it's an option, you could make the template parameter part of the class:
template <typename T> class A
{
protected:
virtual void method(T &);
};
template <typename T> class B : public A<T>
{
virtual void method(T &); // overrides
};
A more involved approach might use some dispatcher object:
struct BaseDispatcher
{
virtual ~BaseDispatcher() { }
template <typename T> void call(T & t) { dynamic_cast<void*>(this)->method(t); }
};
struct ConcreteDispatcher : BaseDispatcher
{
template <typename T> void method(T &);
};
class A
{
public:
explicit A(BaseDispatcher * p = 0) : p_disp(p == 0 ? new BaseDispatcher : p) { }
virtual ~A() { delete p_disp; };
private:
BaseDispatcher * p_disp;
template <typename T> void method(T & t) { p_disp->call(t); }
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() : A(new ConcreteDispatcher) { }
// ...
};
Oops. Initially answered at the wrong question - ah well, at another question
After some thinking I recognized this as the classic multi-method requirement, i.e. a method that dispatches based on the runtime type of more than one parameter. Usual virtual functions are single dispatch in comparison (and they dispatch on the type of this only).
Refer to the following:
Andrei Alexandrescu has written (the seminal bits for C++?) on implementing multi-methods using generics in 'Modern C++ design'
Chapter 11: "Multimethods" - it implements basic multi-methods, making them logarithmic (using ordered typelists) and then going all the way to constant-time multi-methods. Quite powerful stuff !
A codeproject article that seems to have just such an implementation:
no use of type casts of any kind (dynamic, static, reinterpret, const or C-style)
no use of RTTI;
no use of preprocessor;
strong type safety;
separate compilation;
constant time of multimethod execution;
no dynamic memory allocation (via new or malloc) during multimethod call;
no use of nonstandard libraries;
only standard C++ features is used.
C++ Open Method Compiler, Peter Pirkelbauer, Yuriy Solodkyy, and Bjarne Stroustrup
The Loki Library has A MultipleDispatcher
Wikipedia has quite a nice simple write-up with examples on Multiple Dispatch in C++.
Here is the 'simple' approach from the wikipedia article for reference (the less simple approach scales better for larger number of derived types):
// Example using run time type comparison via dynamic_cast
struct Thing {
virtual void collideWith(Thing& other) = 0;
}
struct Asteroid : Thing {
void collideWith(Thing& other) {
// dynamic_cast to a pointer type returns NULL if the cast fails
// (dynamic_cast to a reference type would throw an exception on failure)
if (Asteroid* asteroid = dynamic_cast<Asteroid*>(&other)) {
// handle Asteroid-Asteroid collision
} else if (Spaceship* spaceship = dynamic_cast<Spaceship*>(&other)) {
// handle Asteroid-Spaceship collision
} else {
// default collision handling here
}
}
}
struct Spaceship : Thing {
void collideWith(Thing& other) {
if (Asteroid* asteroid = dynamic_cast<Asteroid*>(&other)) {
// handle Spaceship-Asteroid collision
} else if (Spaceship* spaceship = dynamic_cast<Spaceship*>(&other)) {
// handle Spaceship-Spaceship collision
} else {
// default collision handling here
}
}
}
I think the only solution is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern
See this topic:
How to achieve "virtual template function" in C++