in C++, if a method is accepting left reference + pointer only,
it seems it suffices if we only have a template method with T& as its parameter, why we usually overload with test(T* ) as well ?
proof of concept: left reference method can take pointer argument.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template<class T>
void test(T& arg) {
T value = arg;
cout << *value << endl;
}
int main() {
int b = 4;
int* a = &b;
test(a); // compiles and runs without issue.
return 0;
}
Why [do] we usually overload with test(T* ) as well?
I am not sure that we usually do anything of the sort, but if one were to overload for a pointer, it would be because pointers behave differently than object types. Remember, a pointer in fact is not an object but an address to an object.
The reason that test(a) compiles and runs without issue is because it is accepting a reference to a pointer to an object as its parameter. Thus, when the line cout << *value << endl; executes, the pointer is dereferenced back to an object and we see 4 printed to standard out.
As #HolyBlackCat mentioned, we usually want do different things for T& and T*.
As indicated in the example, for test(T&) we usually need to manually do dereference, this would result in the difference in the behavior, so it makes sense to have a overload like this.
Related
first post, so hopefully not violating any etiquette. Feel free to give suggestions for making the question better.
I've seen a few posts similar to this one: Check if a class has a member function of a given signature, but none do quite what I want. Sure it "works with polymorphism" in the sense that it can properly check subclass types for the function that comes from a superclass, but what I'd like to do is check the object itself and not the class. Using some (slightly tweaked) code from that post:
// Somewhere in back-end
#include <type_traits>
template<typename, typename T>
struct HasFunction {
static_assert(integral_constant<T, false>::value,
"Second template parameter needs to be of function type."
);
};
template<typename C, typename Ret, typename... Args>
class HasFunction<C, Ret(Args...)> {
template<typename T>
static constexpr auto check(T*) -> typename is_same<
decltype(declval<T>().myfunc(declval<Args>()...)), Ret>::type;
template<typename>
static constexpr false_type check(...);
typedef decltype(check<C>(0)) type;
public:
static constexpr bool value = type::value;
};
struct W {};
struct X : W { int myfunc(double) { return 42; } };
struct Y : X {};
I'd like to have something like the following:
// somewhere else in back-end. Called by client code and doesn't know
// what it's been passed!
template <class T>
void DoSomething(T& obj) {
if (HasFunction<T, int(double)>::value)
cout << "Found it!" << endl;
// Do something with obj.myfunc
else cout << "Nothin to see here" << endl;
}
int main()
{
Y y;
W* w = &y; // same object
DoSomething(y); // Found it!
DoSomething(*w); // Nothin to see here?
}
The problem is that the same object being viewed polymorphically causes different results (because the deduced type is what is being checked and not the object). So for example, if I was iterating over a collection of W*'s and calling DoSomething I would want it to no-op on W's but it should do something for X's and Y's. Is this achievable? I'm still digging into templates so I'm still not quite sure what's possible but it seems like it isn't. Is there a different way of doing it altogether?
Also, slightly less related to that specific problem: Is there a way to make HasFunction more like an interface so I could arbitrarily check for different functions? i.e. not have ".myfunc" concrete within it? (seems like it's only possible with macros?) e.g.
template<typename T>
struct HasFoo<T> : HasFunction<T, int foo(void)> {};
int main() {
Bar b;
if(HasFoo<b>::value) b.foo();
}
Obviously that's invalid syntax but hopefully it gets the point across.
It's just not possible to perform deep inspection on a base class pointer in order to check for possible member functions on the pointed-to type (for derived types that are not known ahead of time). Even if we get reflection.
The C++ standard provides us no way to perform this kind of inspection, because the kind of run time type information that is guaranteed to be available is very limited, basically relegated to the type_info structure.
Your compiler/platform may provide additional run-time type information that you can hook into, although the exact types and machinery used to provide RTTI are generally undocumented and difficult to examine (This article by Quarkslab attempts to inspect MSVC's RTTI hierarchy)
I was wondering if there is a way to access a data member within a struct that is being pointed to by a void*? What I'm trying to explain will hopefully be more apparent in my example code:
int main()
{
struct S
{
int val;
};
S s;
s.val = 5;
void* p;
p = malloc(sizeof(S));
*(struct S*) p = s;
std::cout<< *(struct S*)p.val << std::endl;
}
I have ran this exact code casting p as *(int*)p and it printed fine, however, using exact code above results in a compilation error. Haven't been able to find an example that quite accomplishes this task. Is it possible to access the data members of the struct after it is casted? why or why not? if so, how?
The . operator has higher precedence than a C-style cast. So *(struct S*)p.val is treated as *((struct S*)(p.val)), which doesn't make sense since p is a pointer and does not have members.
So you need parentheses to specify what you intended:
std::cout<< (*(struct S*)p).val << std::endl;
Or equivalently,
std::cout<< static_cast<S*>(p)->val << std::endl;
[But also: the statement *(struct S*) p = s; technically has undefined behavior, even though all most implementations will allow it. This is because C++ has rules about when an object is created, and there was no object of type S previously at that address, and assignment does not create an object except for some cases involving union members. A similar statement that does not have this problem would be new(p) S{s};.
Also also: use of malloc or void* is usually not a good idea in C++ in the first place. malloc should only be used when interfacing with a C library that requires it. Anything for which void* seems useful can probably be done more safely using templates. In a few cases a void* might be the only way to do something or "cleverly" avoid code duplication or something, but still use it sparingly and always with extreme caution.]
Suppose I have a following code:
#include <iostream>
#include <deque>
#include <memory>
struct Test
{
int test;
};
int main(int, char**)
{
std::deque<std::unique_ptr<Test>> deque;
deque.push_back(std::unique_ptr<Test>(new Test{10}));
auto start = deque.begin();
std::cout << start->test << std::endl; // <- compilation error
std::cout << (start.operator->())->operator->()->test << std::endl; // <- OK
}
Why is smart-pointer treated as if it would be regular pointer object, although it is not (as far, as I understand)? From what I know, operator->() should recur until it reaches T*.
Here are some related questions on how arrow overloading works and that we need to dereference twice instead of an arrow.
For an iterator it, the expression it->m is equivalent to (*i).m, technically it means that the iterator's operator-> returns a raw pointer to the contained object. In your case it means it returns a raw pointer to the unique_ptr. A final operator-> is applied to that and you end up with a reference to the contained object. This is why no further chaining of operator-> occurs.
The arrow operator is overloaded for unique_ptr. Because you have an iterator, you are dereferencing to a unique_ptr, not the object owned by it. Therefore, you need to dereference twice.
std::cout << (*start)->test << std::endl;
Smart pointer like std::unique_ptr are implemented to store a pointer and behave like a C pointer, while iterators also are pointers themselves.
So why you need to dereference twice? Simply because you have a pointer to pointer to Test.
Its exactly the same as if you have a container of plain pointers:
std::deque<Test*> dq;
dq.push_back(new Test{10});
auto start = dq.begin();
std::cout << (*start)->test << std::endl;
I am trying to learn rvalue references, as an exercise I tried to do answer the following.
Is it possible to write a function that can tell (at least at runtime, better if at compile time) if the passed value is a value (non reference), a rvalue or an lvalue? for a generic type? I want to extract as much information about the type as possible.
An alternative statement of the problem could be:
Can I have a typeid-like function that can tell as much as possible about the calling expression?, for example (and ideally) if the type is T, T&, T const&, or T&&.
Currently, for example, typeid drops some information about the type and one can do better (as in the example the const and non-const reference are distiguished). But how much better than typeid can one possibly do?
This is my best attempt so far. It can't distinguish between a rvalue and a "constant". First and second case in the example).
Maybe distiguishing case 1 and 2 is not possible in any circumstance? since both are ultimately rvalue? the the question is Even if both are rvalues can the two cases trigger different behavior?
In any case, it seems I overcomplicated the solution as I needed to resort to rvalue conditional casts, and ended up with this nasty code and not even 100% there.
#include<iostream>
#include<typeinfo>
template<class T>
void qualified_generic(T&& t){
std::clog << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << std::endl;
std::clog
<< typeid(t).name() // ok, it drops any qualification
<< (std::is_const<typename std::remove_reference<decltype(std::forward<T>(t))>::type>::value?" const":"") // seems to detect constness rigth
<< (std::is_lvalue_reference<decltype(std::forward<T>(t))>::value?"&":"")
<< (std::is_rvalue_reference<decltype(std::forward<T>(t))>::value?"&&":"") // cannot distiguish between passing a constant and an rvalue expression
<< std::endl
;
}
using namespace std;
int main(){
int a = 5;
int const b = 5;
qualified_generic(5); // prints "int&&", would plain "int" be more appropriate?
qualified_generic(a+1); // prints "int&&" ok
qualified_generic(a); // print "int&", ok
qualified_generic(b); // print "int const&", ok
}
Maybe the ultimate solution to distiguish between the cases will involve detecting a constexpr.
UPDATE: I found this talk by Scott Meyers where he claims that "The Standard sometimes requires typeid to give the 'wrong' answer". http://vimeo.com/97344493 about minute 44. I wonder if this is one of the cases.
UPDATE 2015: I revisited the problem using Boost TypeIndex and the result is still the same. For example using:
template<class T>
std::string qualified_generic(T&& t){
return boost::typeindex::type_id_with_cvr<decltype(t)>().pretty_name();
// or return boost::typeindex::type_id_with_cvr<T>().pretty_name();
// or return boost::typeindex::type_id_with_cvr<T&&>().pretty_name();
// or return boost::typeindex::type_id_with_cvr<T&>().pretty_name();
}
Still it is not possible to distinguish the type of 5 and a+1 in the above example.
How can one convert a shared_ptr that points to a const object to a shared_ptr that points to a non-const object.
I am trying to do the following :
boost::shared_ptr<const A> Ckk(new A(4));
boost::shared_ptr<A> kk=const_cast< boost::shared_ptr<A> > Ckk;
But it does not work.
'boost::const_pointer_cast' will do what you're asking for, but the obligatory second half of the answer is that you probably shouldn't use it. 99% of the time when it seems like you need to cast away the const property of a variable, it means that you have a design flaw. Const is sometimes more than just window dressing and casting it away may lead to unexpected bugs.
Without knowing more details of your situation one can't say for certain. But no discussion of const-cast is complete without mentioning this fact.
use boost::const_pointer_cast, documentation.
the proper way should be this
boost::shared_ptr<A> kk (boost::const_pointer_cast<A>(Ckk));
std::const_cast_pointer makes a second managed pointer. After the cast you have a writable pointer and the original const-pointer. The pointee remains the same. The reference count has been increased by 1.
Note that const_cast is a builtin keyword, but const_pointer_cast is a template function in namespace std.
The writable pointer can then be used to change the value from under the shared_ptr<const T>. IMHO the writable pointer should only persist temporarily on the stack; otherwise there must be a design flaw.
I once wrote a small test program to make this clear to myself which I adapted for this thread:
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
using namespace std;
typedef shared_ptr<int> int_ptr;
typedef shared_ptr<const int> const_int_ptr;
int main(void)
{
const_int_ptr Ckk(new int(1));
assert(Ckk.use_count() == 1);
cout << "Ckk = " << *Ckk << endl;
int_ptr kk = const_pointer_cast<int>(Ckk); // obtain a 2nd reference
*kk = 2; // change value under the const pointer
assert(Ckk.use_count() == 2);
cout << "Ckk = " << *Ckk << endl; // prints 3
}
Under UNIX or Windows/Cygwin, compile with
g++ -std=c++0x -lm const_pointer_cast.cpp