Search Results

Search found 3601 results on 145 pages for 'variadic templates'.

Page 40/145 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

  • "Inherited" types in C++

    - by Ken Moynihan
    The following code does not compile. I get an error message: error C2039: 'Asub' : is not a member of 'C' Can someone help me to understand this? Tried VS2008 & 2010 compiler. template <class T> class B { typedef int Asub; public: void DoSomething(typename T::Asub it) { } }; class C : public B<C> { public: typedef int Asub; }; class A { public: typedef int Asub; }; int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { C theThing; theThing.DoSomething(C::Asub()); return 0; }

    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

  • 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

  • C++, function pointer to the template function pointer

    - by Ian
    I am having a pointer to the common static method class MyClass { private: static double ( *pfunction ) ( const Object *, const Object *); ... }; pointing to the static method class SomeClass { public: static double getA ( const Object *o1, const Object *o2); ... }; Initialization: double ( *MyClass::pfunction ) ( const Object *o1, const Object *o2 ) = &SomeClass::getA; I would like to convert this pointer to the static template function pointer: template <class T> static T ( *pfunction ) ( const Object <T> *, const Object <T> *); //Compile error where: class SomeClass { public: template <class T> static double getA ( const Object <T> *o1, const Object <T> *o2); ... }; But there is some error... Thanks for your help...

    Read the article

  • C++ STL type_traits question.

    - by Kim Sun-wu
    I was watching the latest C9 lecture and noticed something interesting.. In his introduction to type_traits, Stephan uses the following (as he says, contrived) example: template <typename T> void foo(T t, true_type) { std::cout << t << " is integral"; } template <typename T> void foo(T t, false_type) { std::cout << t << " is not integral"; } template <typename T> void bar(T t) { foo(t, typename is_integral<T>::type()); } This seems to be far more complicated than: template <typename T> void foo(T t) { if(std::is_integral<T>::value) std::cout << "integral"; else std::cout << "not integral"; } Is there something wrong with the latter way of doing it? Is his way better? Why? Thanks.

    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

  • 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

  • Template class implicit copy constructor issues

    - by Nate
    Stepping through my program in gdb, line 108 returns right back to the calling function, and doesn't call the copy constructor in class A, like (I thought) it should: template <class S> class A{ //etc... A( const A & old ){ //do stuff... } //etc... }; template <class T> class B{ //etc... A<T> ReturnsAnA(){ A<T> result; // do some stuff with result return result; //line 108 } //etc... }; Any hints? I've banged my head against the wall about this for 4 hours now, and can't seem to come up with what's happening here.

    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

  • 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

  • How to use the same template for different query sets?

    - by knuckfubuck
    I'm new to Django and setting up my first site. I have a Share model and a template called share_list.html that uses an object_list like this: {% for object in object_list %} I setup haystack using their tutorial and the search template looks like this: {% for result in page.object_list %} I would like to modify the search.html template to have an include of the share_list so I don't have to repeat myself. How can I make it use the same object_list?

    Read the article

  • word Application.AddIns.Add throws 'Word cannot open this document template'

    - by Vinay B R
    Hi, I have a template document with a simple macro to insert a file into a document. When i try to load this template file using Application.Addins.Add i am getting an error saying 'Word cannot open this document template'. wordApplication.AddIns.Add( %template file path%, ref trueObj ); This works fine on some machines. Also is there any way to make sure that we load the template file as a global Template always.

    Read the article

  • update element in knockout template which was changed by 3td party library

    - by yakov
    I have 'div' element (recaptchaDiv) in knockout template which is not bound to any observable field: <div id="recaptchaDiv"></div> On the other hand, I update this 'div' by 3rd party library. In particular, this is google recaptcha. This is my code: Recaptcha.create("[my private key]", "recaptchaDiv", { theme: "clean", callback: Recaptcha.ToTest }); And it doesn't work (I see nothing). What I know: trying on FF console: $("#recaptchaDiv").html() - it shows the expected html code, I just can't see it in the browser What I tried: to move recaptchaDiv outside of the template and it works: I can see the captcha in the browser to bind recaptchaDiv on html property: in the template: <div id="recaptchaDiv" data-bind="html: recaptcha"></div> in the model: Recaptcha.create("[my private key]", "recaptchaDiv", { theme: "clean", callback: Recaptcha.ToTest }); recaptcha($("#recaptchaDiv").html()); and it doesn't work (replacing jquery on document.getElementById doesn't help) Any help will be very much appreciated!!! Thank you in advance.

    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

  • 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

  • Is it possible to render a template from middleware?

    - by pajton
    I have a middleware that does some processing. On certain conditions it raises an exception and the user sees my 500.html template - correctly responding to 500 http status. Now, on some exceptions I would like to render different template than default 500.html. Is it possible/how to achieve that?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • C++ Function Template With Flexible Return Type

    - by Ignatius Reza
    Let's say that we have a function like so template <class T, class T2> T getMin(T a, T2 b) { if(a < b) return a; return b; } if we call the function like so int a, b; long c; a = getMin(b, c); if c is < a, then the value of c will be type casted to int. Is it possible to make the return type flexible so that it would return an int, or long, or any other type considered smaller by "<" without being type casted?

    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

< Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >