Search Results

Search found 6796 results on 272 pages for 'django templates'.

Page 139/272 | < Previous Page | 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146  | Next Page >

  • Argument type deduction, references and rvalues

    - by uj2
    Consider the situation where a function template needs to forward an argument while keeping it's lvalue-ness in case it's a non-const lvalue, but is itself agnostic to what the argument actually is, as in: template <typename T> void target(T&) { cout << "non-const lvalue"; } template <typename T> void target(const T&) { cout << "const lvalue or rvalue"; } template <typename T> void forward(T& x) { target(x); } When x is an rvalue, instead of T being deduced to a constant type, it gives an error: int x = 0; const int y = 0; forward(x); // T = int forward(y); // T = const int forward(0); // Hopefully, T = const int, but actually an error forward<const int>(0); // Works, T = const int It seems that for forward to handle rvalues (without calling for explicit template arguments) there needs to be an forward(const T&) overload, even though it's body would be an exact duplicate. Is there any way to avoid this duplication?

    Read the article

  • Remove never-run call to templated function, get allocation error on run-time

    - by Narfanator
    First off, I'm a bit at a loss as to how to ask this question. So I'm going to try throwing lots of information at the problem. Ok, so, I went to completely redesign my test project for my experimental core library thingy. I use a lot of template shenanigans in the library. When I removed the "user" code, the tests gave me a memory allocation error. After quite a bit of experimenting, I narrowed it down to this bit of code (out of a couple hundred lines): void VOODOO(components::switchBoard &board){ board.addComponent<using_allegro::keyInputs<'w'> >(); } Fundementally, what's weirding me out is that it appears that the act of compiling this function (and the template function it then uses, and the template functions those then use...), makes this bug not appear. This code is not being run. Similar code (the same, but for different key vals) occurs elsewhere, but is within Boost TDD code. I realize I certainly haven't given enough information for you to solve it for me; I tried, but it more-or-less spirals into most of the code base. I think I'm most looking for "here's what the problem could be", "here's where to look", etc. There's something that's happening during compile because of this line, but I don't know enough about that step to begin looking. Sooo, how can a (presumably) compilied, but never actually run, bit of templated code, when removed, cause another part of code to fail? Error: Unhandled exceptionat 0x6fe731ea (msvcr90d.dll) in Switchboard.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0xcdcdcdc1. Callstack: operator delete(void * pUser Data) allocator< class name related to key inputs callbacks ::deallocate vector< same class ::_Insert_n(...) vector< " " ::insert(...) vector<" "::push_back(...) It looks like maybe the vector isn't valid, because _MyFirst and similar data members are showing values of 0xcdcdcdcd in the debugger. But the vector is a member variable...

    Read the article

  • Type parameterization in Scala

    - by horatius83
    So I'm learning Scala at the moment, and I'm trying to create an abstract vector class with a vector-space of 3 (x,y,z coordinates). I'm trying to add two of these vectors together with the following code: package math class Vector3[T](ax:T,ay:T,az:T) { def x = ax def y = ay def z = az override def toString = "<"+x+", "+y+", "+z+">" def add(that: Vector3[T]) = new Vector3(x+that.x, y+that.y, z+that.z) } The problem is I keep getting this error: error: type mismatch; found : T required: String def add(that: Vector3[T]) = new Vector3(x+that.x, y+that.y, z+that.z) I've tried commenting out the "toString" method above, but that doesn't seem to have any effect. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Simplest way to mix sequences of types with iostreams?

    - by Kylotan
    I have a function void write<typename T>(const T&) which is implemented in terms of writing the T object to an ostream, and a matching function T read<typename T>() that reads a T from an istream. I am basically using iostreams as a plain text serialisation format, which obviously works fine for most built-in types, although I'm not sure how to effectively handle std::strings just yet. I'd like to be able to write out a sequence of objects too, eg void write<typename T>(const std::vector<T>&) or an iterator based equivalent (although in practice, it would always be used with a vector). However, while writing an overload that iterates over the elements and writes them out is easy enough to do, this doesn't add enough information to allow the matching read operation to know how each element is delimited, which is essentially the same problem that I have with a single std::string. Is there a single approach that can work for all basic types and std::string? Or perhaps I can get away with 2 overloads, one for numerical types, and one for strings? (Either using different delimiters or the string using a delimiter escaping mechanism, perhaps.)

    Read the article

  • c++ global operator not playing well with template class

    - by John
    ok, i found some similar posts on stackoverflow, but I couldn't find any that pertained to my exact situation and I was confused with some of the answers given. Ok, so here is my problem: I have a template matrix class as follows: template <typename T, size_t ROWS, size_t COLS> class Matrix { public: template<typename, size_t, size_t> friend class Matrix; Matrix( T init = T() ) : _matrix(ROWS, vector<T>(COLS, init)) { /*for( int i = 0; i < ROWS; i++ ) { _matrix[i] = new vector<T>( COLS, init ); }*/ } Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & operator+=( const T & value ) { for( vector<T>::size_type i = 0; i < this->_matrix.size(); i++ ) { for( vector<T>::size_type j = 0; j < this->_matrix[i].size(); j++ ) { this->_matrix[i][j] += value; } } return *this; } private: vector< vector<T> > _matrix; }; and I have the following global function template: template<typename T, size_t ROWS, size_t COLS> Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> operator+( const Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & lhs, const Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & rhs ) { Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> returnValue = lhs; return returnValue += lhs; } To me, this seems to be right. However, when I try to compile the code, I get the following error (thrown from the operator+ function): binary '+=' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'const matrix::Matrix<T,ROWS,COLS>' (or there is no acceptable conversion) I can't figure out what to make of this. Any help if greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • velocity: join optional fields with a separator/prefix

    - by SlowStrider
    What would be the most concise/readable way in a velocity template to join multiple fields with a separator while leaving out empty or null Strings without adding excess separators? As an example we have a tooltip or appointments that goes like: Appointment ($number) [with $employee] [-] [$remarks] [-] [$roomToVisit] Where I used brackets to indicate optional data. When filled in it would normally show as Appointment (3) with John - ballroom - serve Java coffee When $remarks is empty but $roomToVisit is not, this becomes: Appointment (3) with John - ballroom When $remarks is "serve Java coffee" but $roomToVisit is empty we get: Appointment (3) with John - serve Java coffee When both are empty: Appointment (3) with John Bonus: also make the field prefix optional. When only $employee is empty we should get: Appointment (2) serve Java coffee - ballroom Ideally I would like the velocity template to look very similar to the first code box. If this is not possible, how would you achieve this with a minimum of distracting code tags? Similar ideas (first is much more verbose): Join with intelligent separators velocity: do something except in last loop iteration

    Read the article

  • If you use MVC in your web app then you dont need to use Smarty(TemplateEngine) Right?

    - by Imran
    I'm just trying to understand the Templating(system). If you use MVC in your web application then you don't need to use something like Smarty(template engine) as you are already separating application code from presentation code anyway by using MVC right? please correct me? So am i correct in thinking it's MVC OR Templating or do you use both in your apps?If any one could explain this in detail it would be great. Thank you in advance;-)

    Read the article

  • Can I write a test that succeeds if and only if a statement does not compile?

    - by Billy ONeal
    I'd like to prevent clients of my class from doing something stupid. To that end, I have used the type system, and made my class only accept specific types as input. Consider the following example (Not real code, I've left off things like virtual destructors for the sake of example): class MyDataChunk { //Look Ma! Implementation! }; class Sink; class Source { virtual void Run() = 0; Sink *next_; void SetNext(Sink *next) { next_ = next; } }; class Sink { virtual void GiveMeAChunk(const MyDataChunk& data) { //Impl }; }; class In { virtual void Run { //Impl } }; class Out { }; //Note how filter and sorter have the same declaration. Concrete classes //will inherit from them. The seperate names are there to ensure only //that some idiot doesn't go in and put in a filter where someone expects //a sorter, etc. class Filter : public Source, public Sink { //Drop objects from the chain-of-command pattern that don't match a particular //criterion. }; class Sorter : public Source, public Sink { //Sorts inputs to outputs. There are different sorters because someone might //want to sort by filename, size, date, etc... }; class MyClass { In i; Out o; Filter f; Sorter s; public: //Functions to set i, o, f, and s void Execute() { i.SetNext(f); f.SetNext(s); s.SetNext(o); i.Run(); } }; What I don't want is for somebody to come back later and go, "Hey, look! Sorter and Filter have the same signature. I can make a common one that does both!", thus breaking the semantic difference MyClass requires. Is this a common kind of requirement, and if so, how might I implement a test for it?

    Read the article

  • C++. How to define template parameter of type T for class A when class T needs a type A template parameter?

    - by jaybny
    Executor class has template of type P and it takes a P object in constructor. Algo class has a template E and also has a static variable of type E. Processor class has template T and a collection of Ts. Question how can I define Executor< Processor<Algo> > and Algo<Executor> ? Is this possible? I see no way to defining this, its kind of an "infinite recursive template argument" See code. template <class T> class Processor { map<string,T> ts; void Process(string str, int i) { ts[str].Do(i); } } template <class P> class Executor { Proc &p; Executor(P &p) : Proc(p) {} void Foo(string str, int i) { p.Process(str,i); } Execute(string str) { } } template <class E> class Algo { static E e; void Do(int i) {} void Foo() { e.Execute("xxx"); } } main () { typedef Processor<Algo> PALGO; // invalid typedef Executor<PALGO> EPALGO; typedef Algo<EPALGO> AEPALGO; Executor<PALGO> executor(PALGO()); AEPALGO::E = executor; }

    Read the article

  • Cannot overload function

    - by anio
    So I've got a templatized class and I want to overload the behavior of a function when I have specific type, say char. For all other types, let them do their own thing. However, c++ won't let me overload the function. Why can't I overload this function? I really really do not want to do template specialization, because then I've got duplicate the entire class. Here is a toy example demonstrating the problem: http://codepad.org/eTgLG932 The same code posted here for your reading pleasure: #include <iostream> #include <cstdlib> #include <string> struct Bar { std::string blah() { return "blah"; } }; template <typename T> struct Foo { public: std::string doX() { return m_getY(my_t); } private: std::string m_getY(char* p_msg) { return std::string(p_msg); } std::string m_getY(T* p_msg) { return p_msg->blah(); } T my_t; }; int main(int, char**) { Foo<char> x; Foo<Bar> y; std::cout << "x " << x.doX() << std::endl; return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Thank you everyone for your suggestions. Two valid solutions have been presented. I can either specialize the doX method, or specialize m_getY() method. At the end of the day I prefer to keep my specializations private rather than public so I'm accepting Krill's answer.

    Read the article

  • Lua template processor question

    - by PeterMmm
    I'm going to use that template engine LTP . There is not so much doc available. Now i'm stuck how to pass an environment into the render engine. I have basically this: local ltp = require("ltp.template") ltp.render(io.stdout, 1, "index.dhtm", false, {}, "<?lua", "?>", { total="2400" }) What data structure should be the last parameter (env_code), a string, a table with key=val ?

    Read the article

  • How to treat Base* pointer as Derived<T>* pointer?

    - by dehmann
    I would like to store pointers to a Base class in a vector, but then use them as function arguments where they act as a specific class, see here: #include <iostream> #include <vector> class Base {}; template<class T> class Derived : public Base {}; void Foo(Derived<int>* d) { std::cerr << "Processing int" << std::endl; } void Foo(Derived<double>* d) { std::cerr << "Processing double" << std::endl; } int main() { std::vector<Base*> vec; vec.push_back(new Derived<int>()); vec.push_back(new Derived<double>()); Foo(vec[0]); Foo(vec[1]); delete vec[0]; delete vec[1]; return 0; } This doesn't compile: error: call of overloaded 'Foo(Base*&)' is ambiguous Is it possible to make it work? I need to process the elements of the vector differently, according to their int, double, etc. types.

    Read the article

  • template pass by const reference

    - by 7vies
    Hi, I've looked over a few similar questions, but I'm still confused. I'm trying to figure out how to explicitly (not by compiler optimization etc) and C++03-compatible avoid copying of an object when passing it to a template function. Here is my test code: #include <iostream> using namespace std; struct C { C() { cout << "C()" << endl; } C(const C&) { cout << "C(C)" << endl; } ~C() { cout << "~C()" << endl; } }; template<class T> void f(T) { cout << "f<T>" << endl; } template<> void f(C c) { cout << "f<C>" << endl; } // (1) template<> void f(const C& c) { cout << "f<C&>" << endl; } // (2) int main() { C c; f(c); return 0; } (1) accepts the object of type C, and makes a copy. Here is the output: C() C(C) f<C> ~C() ~C() So I've tried to specialize with a const C& parameter (2) to avoid this, but this simply doesn't work (apparently the reason is explained in this question). Well, I could "pass by pointer", but that's kind of ugly. So is there some trick that would allow to do that somehow nicely? EDIT: Oh, probably I wasn't clear. I already have a templated function template<class T> void f(T) {...} But now I want to specialize this function to accept a const& to another object: template<> void f(const SpecificObject&) {...} But it only gets called if I define it as template<> void f(SpecificObject) {...}

    Read the article

  • template warnings and error help, (gcc)

    - by sil3nt
    Hi there, I'm working on an container class template (for int,bool,strings etc), and I've been stuck with this error cont.h:56: error: expected initializer before '&' token for this section template <typename T> const Container & Container<T>::operator=(const Container<T> & rightCont){ what exactly have I done wrong there?. Also not sure what this warning message means. cont.h:13: warning: friend declaration `bool operator==(const Container<T>&, const Container<T>&)' declares a non-template function cont.h:13: warning: (if this is not what you intended, make sure the function template has already been declared and add <> after the function name here) -Wno-non-template-friend disables this warning at this position template <typename T> class Container{ friend bool operator==(const Container<T> &rhs,const Container<T> &lhs); public:

    Read the article

  • template class: ctor against function -> new C++ standard

    - by Oops
    Hi in this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2779155/template-point2-double-point3-double Dennis and Michael noticed the unreasonable foolishly implemented constructor. They were right, I didn't consider this at that moment. But I found out that a constructor does not help very much for a template class like this one, instead a function is here much more convenient and safe namespace point { template < unsigned int dims, typename T > struct Point { T X[ dims ]; std::string str() { std::stringstream s; s << "{"; for ( int i = 0; i < dims; ++i ) { s << " X" << i << ": " << X[ i ] << (( i < dims -1 )? " |": " "); } s << "}"; return s.str(); } Point<dims, int> toint() { Point<dims, int> ret; std::copy( X, X+dims, ret.X ); return ret; } }; template < typename T > Point< 2, T > Create( T X0, T X1 ) { Point< 2, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; return ret; } template < typename T > Point< 3, T > Create( T X0, T X1, T X2 ) { Point< 3, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; ret.X[ 2 ] = X2; return ret; } template < typename T > Point< 4, T > Create( T X0, T X1, T X2, T X3 ) { Point< 4, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; ret.X[ 2 ] = X2; ret.X[ 3 ] = X3; return ret; } }; int main( void ) { using namespace point; Point< 2, double > p2d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5 ); Point< 3, double > p3d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5, 56.7 ); Point< 4, double > p4d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5, 56.7, 78.9 ); //Point< 3, double > p1d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5 ); //no suitable user defined conversion exists //Point< 3, int > p1i = p4d.toint(); //no suitable user defined conversion exists Point< 2, int > p2i = p2d.toint(); Point< 3, int > p3i = p3d.toint(); Point< 4, int > p4i = p4d.toint(); std::cout << p2d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p3d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p4d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p2i.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p3i.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p4i.str() << std::endl; char c; std::cin >> c; } has the new C++ standard any new improvements, language features or simplifications regarding this aspect of ctor of a template class? what do you think about the implementation of the combination of namespace, stuct and Create function? many thanks in advance Oops

    Read the article

  • Forcing a templated object to construct from a pointer

    - by SalamiArmi
    I have a fictional class: template<typename T> class demonstration { public: demonstration(){} ... T *m_data; } At some point in the program's execution, I want to set m_data to a big block of allocated memory and construct an object T there. At the moment, I've been using this code: void construct() { *m_data = T(); } Which I've now realised is probably not the best idea... wont work under certain cirumstances, if T has a private assignment operator for example. Is there a normal/better way to do what I'm attempting here?

    Read the article

  • Problems with passing an anonymous temporary function-object to a templatized constructor.

    - by Akanksh
    I am trying to attach a function-object to be called on destruction of a templatized class. However, I can not seem to be able to pass the function-object as a temporary. The warning I get is (if the comment the line xi.data = 5;): warning C4930: 'X<T> xi2(writer (__cdecl *)(void))': prototyped function not called (was a variable definition intended?) with [ T=int ] and if I try to use the constructed object, I get a compilation error saying: error C2228: left of '.data' must have class/struct/union I apologize for the lengthy piece of code, but I think all the components need to be visible to assess the situation. template<typename T> struct Base { virtual void run( T& ){} virtual ~Base(){} }; template<typename T, typename D> struct Derived : public Base<T> { virtual void run( T& t ) { D d; d(t); } }; template<typename T> struct X { template<typename R> X(const R& r) { std::cout << "X(R)" << std::endl; ptr = new Derived<T,R>(); } X():ptr(0) { std::cout << "X()" << std::endl; } ~X() { if(ptr) { ptr->run(data); delete ptr; } else { std::cout << "no ptr" << std::endl; } } Base<T>* ptr; T data; }; struct writer { template<typename T> void operator()( const T& i ) { std::cout << "T : " << i << std::endl; } }; int main() { { writer w; X<int> xi2(w); //X<int> xi2(writer()); //This does not work! xi2.data = 15; } return 0; }; The reason I am trying this out is so that I can "somehow" attach function-objects types with the objects without keeping an instance of the function-object itself within the class. Thus when I create an object of class X, I do not have to keep an object of class writer within it, but only a pointer to Base<T> (I'm not sure if I need the <T> here, but for now its there). The problem is that I seem to have to create an object of writer and then pass it to the constructor of X rather than call it like X<int> xi(writer(); I might be missing something completely stupid and obvious here, any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • overloading new/delete problem

    - by hidayat
    This is my scenario, Im trying to overload new and delete globally. I have written my allocator class in a file called allocator.h. And what I am trying to achieve is that if a file is including this header file, my version of new and delete should be used. So in a header file "allocator.h" i have declared the two functions extern void* operator new(std::size_t size); extern void operator delete(void *p, std::size_t size); I the same header file I have a class that does all the allocator stuff, class SmallObjAllocator { ... }; I want to call this class from the new and delete functions and I would like the class to be static, so I have done this: template<unsigned dummy> struct My_SmallObjectAllocatorImpl { static SmallObjAllocator myAlloc; }; template<unsigned dummy> SmallObjAllocator My_SmallObjectAllocatorImpl<dummy>::myAlloc(DEFAULT_CHUNK_SIZE, MAX_OBJ_SIZE); typedef My_SmallObjectAllocatorImpl<0> My_SmallObjectAllocator; and in the cpp file it looks like this: allocator.cc void* operator new(std::size_t size) { std::cout << "using my new" << std::endl; if(size > MAX_OBJ_SIZE) return malloc(size); else return My_SmallObjectAllocator::myAlloc.allocate(size); } void operator delete(void *p, std::size_t size) { if(size > MAX_OBJ_SIZE) free(p); else My_SmallObjectAllocator::myAlloc.deallocate(p, size); } The problem is when I try to call the constructor for the class SmallObjAllocator which is a static object. For some reason the compiler are calling my overloaded function new when initializing it. So it then tries to use My_SmallObjectAllocator::myAlloc.deallocate(p, size); which is not defined so the program crashes. So why are the compiler calling new when I define a static object? and how can I solve it?

    Read the article

  • Reducing template bloat with inheritance

    - by benoitj
    Does anyone have experience reducing template code bloat using inheritance? i hesitate rewriting our containers this way: class vectorBase { public: int size(); void clear(); int m_size; void *m_rawData; //.... }; template< typename T > class vector : public vectorBase { void push_back( const T& ); //... }; I should keep maximum performance while reducing compile time I'm also wondering why stl implementations do not uses this approach Thanks for your feedbacks

    Read the article

  • Constructor initializer list: code from the C++ Primer, chapter 16

    - by Alexandros Gezerlis
    Toward the end of Chapter 16 of the "C++ Primer" I encountered the following code (I've removed a bunch of lines): class Sales_item { public: // default constructor: unbound handle Sales_item(): h() { } private: Handle<Item_base> h; // use-counted handle }; My problem is with the Sales_item(): h() { } line. For the sake of completeness, let me also quote the parts of the Handle class template that I think are relevant to my question (I think I don't need to show the Item_base class): template <class T> class Handle { public: // unbound handle Handle(T *p = 0): ptr(p), use(new size_t(1)) { } private: T* ptr; // shared object size_t *use; // count of how many Handles point to *ptr }; I would have expected something like either: a) Sales_item(): h(0) { } which is a convention the authors have used repeatedly in earlier chapters, or b) Handle<Item_base>() if the intention was to invoke the default constructor of the Handle class. Instead, what the book has is Sales_item(): h() { }. My gut reaction is that this is a typo, since h() looks suspiciously similar to a function declaration. On the other hand, I just tried compiling under g++ and running the example code that uses this class and it seems to be working correctly. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Template meta-programming with member function pointers?

    - by wheaties
    Is it possible to use member function pointers with template meta-programming? Such as: class Connection{ public: string getName() const; string getAlias() const; //more stuff }; typedef string (Connection::*Con_Func)() const; template<Con_Func _Name> class Foo{ Connection m_Connect; public: void Foo(){ cout << m_Connect.(*_Name); } }; typedef Foo<&Connection::getName> NamedFoo; typedef Foo<&Connection::getAlias> AliasFoo; Granted, this is rather contrived but is it possible? (yes, there are probably much better ways but humor me.)

    Read the article

  • Template inheritance: X is not a template

    - by user2923917
    I am trying to build a inheritance-structure which looks like: Base - template Grandpa - template Father class Base {}; template <int x> class Grandpa: public Base {}; template <int x> class Father: public Grandpa<x> {}; However, the compiler complains when compiling Father, that Grandpa is not a template. I guess it is just some synthatic issue, however everything I've tried so far led to even more compiler complaints ;) Any idea whats wrong?

    Read the article

  • Function template accepting nothing less than a bidirectional iterator or a pointer

    - by san
    I need a function template that accepts two iterators that could be pointers. If the two arguments are random_access iterators I want the return type to be an object of std::iterator<random_access_iterator_tag, ...> type else a std::iterator<bidirectional_iterator_tag, ...> type. I also want the code to refuse compilation if the arguments are neither a bidirectional iterator, nor a pointer. I cannot have dependency on third party libraries e.g. Boost Could you help me with the signature of this function so that it accepts bidirectional iterators as well as pointers, but not say input_iterator, output_iterator, forward_iterators. One partial solution I can think of is the following template<class T> T foo( T iter1, T iter2) { const T tmp1 = reverse_iterator<T>(iter1); const T tmp2 = reverse_iterator<T>(iter2); // do something } The idea is that if it is not bidirectional the compiler will not let me construct a reverse_iterator from it.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146  | Next Page >