C++ cast to array of a smaller size - c++

Question

Here's an interesting question about the various quirks of the C++ language. I have a pair of functions, which are supposed to fill an array of points with the corners of a rectangle. There are two overloads for it: one takes a Point[5], the other takes a Point[4]. The 5-point version refers to a closed polygon, whereas the 4-point version is when you just want the 4 corners, period.
Obviously there's some duplication of work here, so I'd like to be able to use the 4-point version to populate the first 4 points of the 5-point version, so I'm not duplicating that code. (Not that it's much to duplicate, but I have terrible allergic reactions whenever I copy and paste code, and I'd like to avoid that.)
The thing is, C++ doesn't seem to care for the idea of converting a T[m] to a T[n] where n < m. static_cast seems to think the types are incompatible for some reason. reinterpret_cast handles it fine, of course, but is a dangerous animal that, as a general rule, is better to avoid if at all possible.
So my question is: is there a type-safe way of casting an array of one size to an array of a smaller size where the array type is the same?
[Edit] Code, yes. I should have mentioned that the parameter is actually a reference to an array, not simply a pointer, so the compiler is aware of the type difference.
void RectToPointArray(const degRect& rect, degPoint(&points)[4])
{
points[0].lat = rect.nw.lat; points[0].lon = rect.nw.lon;
points[1].lat = rect.nw.lat; points[1].lon = rect.se.lon;
points[2].lat = rect.se.lat; points[2].lon = rect.se.lon;
points[3].lat = rect.se.lat; points[3].lon = rect.nw.lon;
}
void RectToPointArray(const degRect& rect, degPoint(&points)[5])
{
// I would like to use a more type-safe check here if possible:
RectToPointArray(rect, reinterpret_cast<degPoint(&)[4]> (points));
points[4].lat = rect.nw.lat; points[4].lon = rect.nw.lon;
}
[Edit2] The point of passing an array-by-reference is so that we can be at least vaguely sure that the caller is passing in a correct "out parameter".

Answer 1

I don't think it's a good idea to do this by overloading. The name of the function doesn't tell the caller whether it's going to fill an open array or not. And what if the caller has only a pointer and wants to fill coordinates (let's say he wants to fill multiple rectangles to be part of a bigger array at different offsets)?
I would do this by two functions, and let them take pointers. The size isn't part of the pointer's type
void fillOpenRect(degRect const& rect, degPoint *p) {
...
}
void fillClosedRect(degRect const& rect, degPoint *p) {
fillOpenRect(rect, p); p[4] = p[0];
}
I don't see what's wrong with this. Your reinterpret-cast should work fine in practice (i don't see what could go wrong - both alignment and representation will be correct, so the merely formal undefinedness won't carry out to reality here, i think), but as i said above i think there's no good reason to make these functions take the arrays by reference.
If you want to do it generically, you can write it by output iterators
template<typename OutputIterator>
OutputIterator fillOpenRect(degRect const& rect, OutputIterator out) {
typedef typename iterator_traits<OutputIterator>::value_type value_type;
value_type pt[] = {
{ rect.nw.lat, rect.nw.lon },
{ rect.nw.lat, rect.se.lon },
{ rect.se.lat, rect.se.lon },
{ rect.se.lat, rect.nw.lon }
};
for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
*out++ = pt[i];
return out;
}
template<typename OutputIterator>
OutputIterator fillClosedRect(degRect const& rect, OutputIterator out) {
typedef typename iterator_traits<OutputIterator>::value_type value_type;
out = fillOpenRect(rect, out);
value_type p1 = { rect.nw.lat, rect.nw.lon };
*out++ = p1;
return out;
}
You can then use it with vectors and also with arrays, whatever you prefer most.
std::vector<degPoint> points;
fillClosedRect(someRect, std::back_inserter(points));
degPoint points[5];
fillClosedRect(someRect, points);
If you want to write safer code, you can use the vector way with back-inserters, and if you work with lower level code, you can use a pointer as output iterator.

Answer 2

I would use std::vector or (this is really bad and should not be used) in some extreme cases you can even use plain arrays via pointer like Point* and then you shouldn't have such "casting" troubles.

Answer 3

Why don't you just pass a standard pointer, instead of a sized one, like this
void RectToPointArray(const degRect& rect, degPoint * points ) ;

Answer 4

I don't think your framing/thinking of the problem is correct. You don't generally need to concretely type an object that has 4 vertices vs an object that has 5.
But if you MUST type it, then you can use structs to concretely define the types instead.
struct Coord
{
float lat, long ;
} ;
Then
struct Rectangle
{
Coord points[ 4 ] ;
} ;
struct Pentagon
{
Coord points[ 5 ] ;
} ;
Then,
// 4 pt version
void RectToPointArray(const degRect& rect, const Rectangle& rectangle ) ;
// 5 pt version
void RectToPointArray(const degRect& rect, const Pentagon& pent ) ;
I think this solution is a bit extreme however, and a std::vector<Coord> that you check its size (to be either 4 or 5) as expected with asserts, would do just fine.

Answer 5

I guess you could use function template specialization, like this (simplified example where first argument was ignored and function name was replaced by f(), etc.):
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class X
{
};
template<int sz, int n>
int f(X (&x)[sz])
{
cout<<"process "<<n<<" entries in a "<<sz<<"-dimensional array"<<endl;
int partial_result=f<sz,n-1>(x);
cout<<"process last entry..."<<endl;
return n;
}
//template specialization for sz=5 and n=4 (number of entries to process)
template<>
int f<5,4>(X (&x)[5])
{
cout<<"process only the first "<<4<<" entries here..."<<endl;
return 4;
}
int main(void)
{
X u[5];
int res=f<5,5>(u);
return 0;
}
Of course you would have to take care of other (potentially dangerous) special cases like n={0,1,2,3} and you're probably better off using unsigned int's instead of ints.

Answer 6

So my question is: is there a
type-safe way of casting an array of
one size to an array of a smaller size
where the array type is the same?
No. I don't think the language allows you to do this at all: consider casting int[10] to int[5]. You can always get a pointer to it, however, but we can't 'trick' the compiler into thinking a fixed-sized has a different number of dimensions.
If you're not going to use std::vector or some other container which can properly identify the number of points inside at runtime and do this all conveniently in one function instead of two function overloads which get called based on the number of elements, rather than trying to do crazy casts, consider this at least as an improvement:
void RectToPointArray(const degRect& rect, degPoint* points, unsigned int size);
If you're set on working with arrays, you can still define a generic function like this:
template <class T, size_t N>
std::size_t array_size(const T(&/*array*/)[N])
{
return N;
}
... and use that when calling RectToPointArray to pass the argument for 'size'. Then you have a size you can determine at runtime and it's easy enough to work with size - 1, or more appropriate for this case, just put a simple if statement to check if there are 5 elements or 4.
Later if you change your mind and use std::vector, Boost.Array, etc. you can still use this same old function without modifying it. It only requires that the data is contiguous and mutable. You can get fancy with this and apply very generic solutions that, say, only require forward iterators. Yet I don't think this problem is complicated enough to warrant such a solution: it'd be like using a cannon to kill a fly; fly swatter is okay.
If you're really set on the solution you have, then it's easy enough to do this:
template <size_t N>
void RectToPointArray(const degRect& rect, degPoint(&points)[N])
{
assert(N >= 4 && "points requires at least 4 elements!");
points[0].lat = rect.nw.lat; points[0].lon = rect.nw.lon;
points[1].lat = rect.nw.lat; points[1].lon = rect.se.lon;
points[2].lat = rect.se.lat; points[2].lon = rect.se.lon;
points[3].lat = rect.se.lat; points[3].lon = rect.nw.lon;
if (N >= 5)
points[4].lat = rect.nw.lat; points[4].lon = rect.nw.lon;
}
Yeah, there is one unnecessary runtime check but trying to do it at compile time is probably analogous to taking things out of your glove compartment in an attempt to increase your car's fuel efficiency. With N being a compile-time constant expression, the compiler is likely to recognize that the condition is always false when N < 5 and just eliminate that whole section of code.