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");
}
Related
In some code that I was reading, I found the usage of empty struct like so:
struct input_iterator_tag { };
struct bidirectional_iterator_tag { };
struct random_access_iterator_tag { };
So in the rest of the code, it was used as what they call tag dispatching.
I was wondering if there is other usage of empty structs.
from an older post I saw that :
three major reasons we use empty structs in C++ are:
a base interface
a template parameter
a type to help overload resolution. (tag dispatching if I am not wrong)
Could someone explain that please?
a type to help overload resolution. (tag dispatching if I am not wrong)
When you want to use a complex template specialization pattern on some function, you don't try to go at it directly, but rather write:
template <typename T1, typename T2, other things maybe>
int foo(T1 param1, T2 param2 and so on)
{
using tag = put your complex stuff here, which produces an empty struct
detail::foo_impl(tag, std::forward<T1>(param1), std::forward<T2>(param2) and so on);
}
Now, the compiler doesn't have to decide between competing choices of template specialization, since with different tags you get incompatible functions.
a base interface
struct vehicle {
// common members and methods,
// including (pure) virtual ones, e.g.
virtual std::size_t num_maximum_occupants() = 0;
virtual ~vehicle() = default;
};
namespace mixins {
struct named { std::string name; };
struct wheeled { int num_wheels; public: rev() { }; };
} // namespace mixins
struct private_sedan : public vehicle, public wheeled, named {
// I dunno, put some car stuff here
//
// and also an override of `num_maximum_occupants()`
};
Making the base struct completely empty is perhaps not that common, but it's certainly possible if you use mixins a lot. And you could check for inheritance from vehicle (although I'm not sure I'd do that).
a template parameter
Not sure what this means, but venturing a guess:
template <typename T>
struct foo { };
template <typename T, typename N>
struct foo<std::array<T, N>> {
int value = 1;
};
If you now use foo<T>::value in a function, it will work only if T is int with few (?) exceptions.
I also tried to come up with examples:
as a base interface
// collection of very abstract vehicles
#include <vector>
struct Vehicle {};
struct Car : Vehicle {
int count_of_windows;
};
struct Bike : Vehicle {
int size_of_wheels;
};
std::vector<Vehicle> v{Bike{}, Car{}};
as a template parameter
// print same number in 3 different formats
#include <iostream>
struct dec {};
struct hex {};
struct octal {};
template<typename HOW = dec>
void print_me(int v);
template<>
void print_me<dec>(int v) {
auto f = std::cout.flags();
std::cout << std::dec << v << std::endl;
std::cout.flags(f);
}
template<>
void print_me<hex>(int v) {
auto f = std::cout.flags();
std::cout << std::hex << v << std::endl;
std::cout.flags( f );
}
template<>
void print_me<octal>(int v) {
auto f = std::cout.flags();
std::cout << std::oct << v << std::endl;
std::cout.flags(f);
}
int main() {
print_me(100);
print_me<hex>(100);
print_me<octal>(100);
}
a type to help overload resolution
// add a "noexcept" qualifier to overloaded function
// the noexcept version typically uses different functions
// and a custom "abort" handler
#include <iostream>
struct disable_exceptions {};
void is_number_1() {
int v;
std::cin >> v;
if (v != 1) {
throw new std::runtime_error("AAAA");
}
}
void is_number_1(disable_exceptions) noexcept {
int v;
// use C function - they don't throw
if (std::scanf("%d", &v) != 1) {
std::abort();
}
if (v != 1) {
std::abort();
}
}
int main() {
is_number_1();
is_number_1(disable_exceptions());
}
The example about "tag dispatching" can be found on cppreference iterator_tags. The iterator_category() member of an iterator is used to pick a different overload. That way you could write a different algorithm if for example iterator is forward_iterator, where you can only go forward, or it is a bidirectional_iterator, where your algorithm could change because you may walk back.
I have this code:
// signal supporter parent
class signalable {};
template <class typeT = signalable>
typedef void (typeT::*trig)(std::string);
template <class typeT = signalable>
class trigger
{
private:
typeT* instance;
typeT::trig fun;
public:
trigger(typeT* inst, typeT::trig function)
: instance(inst), fun(function)
{}
void operator ()(std::string param)
{
(instance->*fun)(param);
}
};
And I get lots of compile error that I bet pros know of. I'm just confused a little bit about this context.
What I want to do is clear: Pass pointer to an object, and pointer to one of it's member functions, to make a functor and pass it over in my program.
Would appreciate your helps and "corrections".
Thank you!
Are you trying to do something like this?
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
// signal supporter parent
class signalable
{
public:
void foo(std::string s) { std::cout << "hello: " << s << std::endl; }
};
template <class typeT = signalable>
class trigger
{
typedef void (typeT::*trig)(std::string);
private:
typeT* instance;
trig fun;
public:
trigger(typeT* inst, trig function)
: instance(inst), fun(function)
{}
void operator ()(std::string param)
{
(instance->*fun)(param);
}
};
int main()
{
signalable s;
trigger<> t(&s, &signalable::foo);
t("world");
}
As for some of the more specific errors in your code, most of them seem to relate to your typedef. C++11 allows "template typedefs", but they don't look like that. Have a look at this thread for an example of template typedefs:
C++ template typedef
suppose you have some code like this:
struct Manager
{
template <class T>
void doSomething(T const& t)
{
Worker<T> worker;
worker.work(t);
}
};
A "Manager" object is created once and called with a few diffent types "T", but each type T is called many times. This might be, in a simplified form, like
Manager manager;
const int N = 1000;
for (int i=0;i<N;i++)
{
manager.doSomething<int>(3);
manager.doSomething<char>('x');
manager.doSomething<float>(3.14);
}
Now profiling revealed that constructing a Worker<T> is a time-costly operation and it should be avoided to construct it N times (within doSomething<T>). For thread-safety reasons it is ok to have one Worker<int>, one Worker<char> and Worker<float> per "Manager", but not one Worker<int> for all Managers. So usually I would make "worker" a member variable. But how could I do this in the code above? (I do not know in advance which "T"s will be used).
I have found a solution using a std::map, but it is not fully typesafe and certainly not very elegant. Can you suggest a typesafe way without constructing Worker<T> more often than once per "T" without virtual methods?
(please note that Worker is not derived from any template-argument free base class).
Thanks for any solution!
You can use something like a std::map<std::type_info,shared_ptr<void> > like this:
#include <map>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <utility>
#include <functional>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
using namespace std;
using namespace boost;
// exposition only:
template <typename T>
struct Worker {
void work( const T & ) {}
};
// wrapper around type_info (could use reference_wrapper,
// but the code would be similar) to make it usable as a map<> key:
struct TypeInfo {
const type_info & ti;
/*implicit*/ TypeInfo( const type_info & ti ) : ti( ti ) {}
};
// make it LessComparable (could spcialise std::less, too):
bool operator<( const TypeInfo & lhs, const TypeInfo & rhs ) {
return lhs.ti.before( rhs.ti );
}
struct Manager
{
map<TypeInfo,shared_ptr<void> > m_workers;
template <class T>
Worker<T> * findWorker()
{
const map<TypeInfo,shared_ptr<void> >::const_iterator
it = m_workers.find( typeid(T) );
if ( it == m_workers.end() ) {
const shared_ptr< Worker<T> > nworker( new Worker<T> );
m_workers[typeid(T)] = nworker;
return nworker.get();
} else {
return static_cast<Worker<T>*>( it->second.get() );
}
}
template <typename T>
void doSomething( const T & t ) {
findWorker<T>()->work( t );
}
};
int main() {
Manager m;
m.doSomething( 1 );
m.doSomething( 1. );
return 0;
}
This is typesafe because we use type_info as an index into the map. Also, the workers are properly deleted even though they're in shared_ptr<void>s because the deleter is copied from the original shared_ptr<Worker<T> >s, and that one calls the proper constructor. It also doesn't use virtual functions, although all type erasure (and this is one) uses something like virtual functions somewhere. Here, it's in shared_ptr.
Factoring the template-independent code from findWorker into a non-template function to reduce code bloat is left as an exercise for the reader :)
Thanks to all commenters who pointed out the mistake of using type_info as the key directly.
You can add std::vector of boost::variants or boost::anys as member of your class. And append to it any worker you want.
EDIT: The code bellow will explain how
struct Manager
{
std::vector<std::pair<std::type_info, boost::any> > workers;
template <class T>
void doSomething(T const& t)
{
int i = 0;
for(; i < workers.size(); ++i)
if(workers[i].first == typeid(T))
break;
if(i == workers.size())
workers.push_back(std::pair<std::type_info, boost::any>(typeid(T).name(), Worker<T>());
any_cast<T>(workers[i]).work(t);
}
};
I was already working on an answer similar to mmutz's by time he posted his. Here's a complete solution that compiles and runs under GCC 4.4.3. It uses RTTI and polymorphism to lazily construct Worker<T>s and store them in a map.
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <map>
struct BaseWorker
{
virtual ~BaseWorker() {}
virtual void work(const void* x) = 0;
};
template <class T>
struct Worker : public BaseWorker
{
Worker()
{
/* Heavyweight constructor*/
std::cout << typeid(T).name() << " constructor\n";
}
void work(const void* x) {doWork(*static_cast<const T*>(x));}
void doWork(const T& x)
{std::cout << typeid(T).name() << "::doWork(" << x << ")\n";}
};
struct TypeofLessThan
{
bool operator()(const std::type_info* lhs, const std::type_info* rhs) const
{return lhs->before(*rhs);}
};
struct Manager
{
typedef std::map<const std::type_info*, BaseWorker*, TypeofLessThan> WorkerMap;
~Manager()
{
// Delete all BaseWorkers in workerMap_
WorkerMap::iterator it;
for (it = workerMap_.begin(); it != workerMap_.end(); ++it)
delete it->second;
}
template <class T>
void doSomething(T const& x)
{
WorkerMap::iterator it = workerMap_.find(&typeid(T));
if (it == workerMap_.end())
{
it = workerMap_.insert(
std::make_pair(&typeid(T), new Worker<T>) ).first;
}
Worker<T>* worker = static_cast<Worker<T>*>(it->second);
worker->work(&x);
}
WorkerMap workerMap_;
};
int main()
{
Manager manager;
const int N = 10;
for (int i=0;i<N;i++)
{
manager.doSomething<int>(3);
manager.doSomething<char>('x');
manager.doSomething<float>(3.14);
}
}
map<std::type_info, BaseWorker*> doesn't work because type_info is not copy-constructible. I had do use map<const std::type_info*, BaseWorker*>. I just need to check that typeid(T) is guaranteed to always return the same reference (I think it is).
It doesn't matter whether or not typeid(T) returns the same reference, because I always use type_info::before do to all comparisons.
something like this will work:
struct Base { };
template<class T> struct D : public Base { Manager<T> *ptr; };
...
struct Manager {
...
Base *ptr;
};
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"));
I am reluctant to say I can't figure this out, but I can't figure this out. I've googled and searched Stack Overflow, and come up empty.
The abstract, and possibly overly vague form of the question is, how can I use the traits-pattern to instantiate member functions? [Update: I used the wrong term here. It should be "policies" rather than "traits." Traits describe existing classes. Policies prescribe synthetic classes.] The question came up while modernizing a set of multivariate function optimizers that I wrote more than 10 years ago.
The optimizers all operate by selecting a straight-line path through the parameter space away from the current best point (the "update"), then finding a better point on that line (the "line search"), then testing for the "done" condition, and if not done, iterating.
There are different methods for doing the update, the line-search, and conceivably for the done test, and other things. Mix and match. Different update formulae require different state-variable data. For example, the LMQN update requires a vector, and the BFGS update requires a matrix. If evaluating gradients is cheap, the line-search should do so. If not, it should use function evaluations only. Some methods require more accurate line-searches than others. Those are just some examples.
The original version instantiates several of the combinations by means of virtual functions. Some traits are selected by setting mode bits that are tested at runtime. Yuck. It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago. It bugs me that I cannot figure out a whiz-bang modern way.
If there were only one trait that varied, I could use the curiously recurring template pattern. But I see no way to extend that to arbitrary combinations of traits.
I tried doing it using boost::enable_if, etc.. The specialized state information was easy. I managed to get the functions done, but only by resorting to non-friend external functions that have the this-pointer as a parameter. I never even figured out how to make the functions friends, much less member functions. The compiler (VC++ 2008) always complained that things didn't match. I would yell, "SFINAE, you moron!" but the moron is probably me.
Perhaps tag-dispatch is the key. I haven't gotten very deeply into that.
Surely it's possible, right? If so, what is best practice?
UPDATE: Here's another try at explaining it. I want the user to be able to fill out an order (manifest) for a custom optimizer, something like ordering off of a Chinese menu - one from column A, one from column B, etc.. Waiter, from column A (updaters), I'll have the BFGS update with Cholesky-decompositon sauce. From column B (line-searchers), I'll have the cubic interpolation line-search with an eta of 0.4 and a rho of 1e-4, please. Etc...
UPDATE: Okay, okay. Here's the playing-around that I've done. I offer it reluctantly, because I suspect it's a completely wrong-headed approach. It runs okay under vc++ 2008.
#include <boost/utility.hpp>
#include <boost/type_traits/integral_constant.hpp>
namespace dj {
struct CBFGS {
void bar() {printf("CBFGS::bar %d\n", data);}
CBFGS(): data(1234){}
int data;
};
template<class T>
struct is_CBFGS: boost::false_type{};
template<>
struct is_CBFGS<CBFGS>: boost::true_type{};
struct LMQN {LMQN(): data(54.321){}
void bar() {printf("LMQN::bar %lf\n", data);}
double data;
};
template<class T>
struct is_LMQN: boost::false_type{};
template<>
struct is_LMQN<LMQN> : boost::true_type{};
// "Order form"
struct default_optimizer_traits {
typedef CBFGS update_type; // Selection from column A - updaters
};
template<class traits> class Optimizer;
template<class traits>
void foo(typename boost::enable_if<is_LMQN<typename traits::update_type>,
Optimizer<traits> >::type& self)
{
printf(" LMQN %lf\n", self.data);
}
template<class traits>
void foo(typename boost::enable_if<is_CBFGS<typename traits::update_type>,
Optimizer<traits> >::type& self)
{
printf("CBFGS %d\n", self.data);
}
template<class traits = default_optimizer_traits>
class Optimizer{
friend typename traits::update_type;
//friend void dj::foo<traits>(typename Optimizer<traits> & self); // How?
public:
//void foo(void); // How???
void foo() {
dj::foo<traits>(*this);
}
void bar() {
data.bar();
}
//protected: // How?
typedef typename traits::update_type update_type;
update_type data;
};
} // namespace dj
int main() {
dj::Optimizer<> opt;
opt.foo();
opt.bar();
std::getchar();
return 0;
}
A simple solution might be to just use tag-based forwarding, e.g. something like this:
template<class traits>
void foo(Optimizer<traits>& self, const LMQN&) {
printf(" LMQN %lf\n", self.data.data);
}
template<class traits>
void foo(Optimizer<traits>& self, const CBFGS&) {
printf("CBFGS %d\n", self.data.data);
}
template<class traits = default_optimizer_traits>
class Optimizer {
friend class traits::update_type;
friend void dj::foo<traits>(Optimizer<traits>& self,
const typename traits::update_type&);
public:
void foo() {
dj::foo<traits>(*this, typename traits::update_type());
}
void bar() {
data.bar();
}
protected:
typedef typename traits::update_type update_type;
update_type data;
};
Or if you want to conveniently group several functions together for different traits, maybe something like this:
template<class traits, class updater=typename traits::update_type>
struct OptimizerImpl;
template<class traits>
struct OptimizerImpl<traits, LMQN> {
static void foo(Optimizer<traits>& self) {
printf(" LMQN %lf\n", self.data.data);
}
};
template<class traits>
struct OptimizerImpl<traits, CBFGS> {
static void foo(Optimizer<traits>& self) {
printf("CBFGS %d\n", self.data.data);
}
};
template<class traits = default_optimizer_traits>
class Optimizer{
friend class traits::update_type;
friend struct OptimizerImpl<traits>;
public:
void foo() {
OptimizerImpl<traits>::foo(*this);
}
// ...
};
I think template specialization is a step in the right direction. This doesn't work with functions so I switched to classes. I changed it so it modifies the data. I'm not so sold on the protected members and making friends. Protected members without inheritance is a smell. Make it public or provide accessors and make it private.
template <typename>
struct foo;
template <>
struct foo<LMQN>
{
template <typename OptimizerType>
void func(OptimizerType& that)
{
printf(" LMQN %lf\n", that.data.data);
that.data.data = 3.14;
}
};
template <>
struct foo<CBFGS>
{
template <typename OptimizerType>
void func(OptimizerType& that)
{
printf(" CBFGS %lf\n", that.data.data);
}
};
template<class traits = default_optimizer_traits>
class Optimizer{
public:
typedef typename traits::update_type update_type;
void foo() {
dj::foo<typename traits::update_type>().func(*this);
}
void bar() {
data.bar();
}
update_type data;
};
It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago.
Although it may be worth learning new methods, macros are often the simplest way to do things and shouldn't be discarded as a tool just because they're "old". If you look at the MPL in boost and the book on TMP you'll find much use of the preprocessor.
Here's what I (the OP) came up with. Can you make it cooler?
The main Optimizer template class inherits policy-implementation classes. It gives those classes access to the Optimizer's protected members that they require. Another Optimizer template class splits the manifest into its constituent parts and instantiates the main Optimizer template.
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdio>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
namespace dj {
// An updater.
struct CBFGS {
CBFGS(int &protect_)
: protect(protect_)
{}
void update () {
cout << "CBFGS " << protect << endl;
}
// Peek at optimizer's protected data
int &protect;
};
// Another updater
struct LMQN {
LMQN(int &protect_)
: protect(protect_)
{}
void update () {
cout << "LMQN " << protect << endl;
}
// Peek at optimizer's protected data
int &protect;
};
// A line-searcher
struct cubic_line_search {
cubic_line_search (int &protect2_)
: protect2(protect2_)
{}
void line_search() {
cout << "cubic_line_search " << protect2 << endl;
}
// Peek at optimizer's protected data
int &protect2;
};
struct default_search_policies {
typedef CBFGS update_type;
typedef cubic_line_search line_search_type;
};
template<class Update, class LineSearch>
class Opt_base: Update, LineSearch
{
public:
Opt_base()
: protect(987654321)
, protect2(123456789)
, Update(protect)
, LineSearch(protect2)
{}
void minimize() {
update();
line_search();
}
protected:
int protect;
int protect2;
};
template<class Search_Policies=default_search_policies>
class Optimizer:
public Opt_base<typename Search_Policies::update_type
, typename Search_Policies::line_search_type
>
{};
} // namespace dj
int main() {
dj::Optimizer<> opt; // Use default search policies
opt.minimize();
struct my_search_policies {
typedef dj::LMQN update_type;
typedef dj::cubic_line_search line_search_type;
};
dj::Optimizer<my_search_policies> opt2;
opt2.minimize();
std::getchar();
return 0;
}
Your use of enable_if is somewhat strange. I've seen it used it only 2 ways:
in place of the return type
as a supplementary parameter (defaulted)
Using it for a real parameter might cause the havoc.
Anyway, it's definitely possible to use it for member functions:
template<class traits = default_optimizer_traits>
class Optimizer{
typedef typename traits::update_type update_type;
public:
typename boost::enable_if< is_LQMN<update_type> >::type
foo()
{
// printf is unsafe, prefer the C++ way ;)
std::cout << "LQMN: " << data << std::endl;
}
typename boost::enable_if< is_CBFGS<update_type> >::type
foo()
{
std::cout << "CBFGS: " << data << std::endl;
}
private:
update_type data;
};
Note that by default enable_if returns void, which is eminently suitable as a return type in most cases. The "parameter" syntax is normally reserved for the constructor cases, because you don't have a return type at your disposal then, but in general prefer to use the return type so that it does not meddle with overload resolution.
EDIT:
The previous solution does not work, as noted in the comments. I could not find any alternative using enable_if, only the "simple" overload way:
namespace detail
{
void foo_impl(const LMQN& data)
{
std::cout << "LMQN: " << data.data << std::endl;
}
void foo_impl(const CBFGS& data)
{
std::cout << "CBFGS: " << data.data << std::endl;
}
} // namespace detail
template<class traits = default_optimizer_traits>
class Optimizer{
typedef typename traits::update_type update_type;
public:
void foo() { detail::foo_impl(data); }
private:
update_type data;
};
It's not enable_if but it does the job without exposing Optimizer internals to everyone. KISS ?