Search Results

Search found 631 results on 26 pages for 'typename'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 5/26 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Output iterator's value_type

    - by wilhelmtell
    The STL commonly defines an output iterator like so: template<class Cont> class insert_iterator : public iterator<output_iterator_tag,void,void,void,void> { // ... Why do output iterators define value_type as void? It would be useful for an algorithm to know what type of value it is supposed to output. For example, a function that translates a URL query "key1=value1&key2=value2&key3=value3" into any container that holds key-value strings elements. template<typename Ch,typename Tr,typename Out> void parse(const std::basic_string<Ch,Tr>& str, Out result) { std::basic_string<Ch,Tr> key, value; // loop over str, parse into p ... *result = typename iterator_traits<Out>::value_type(key, value); } The SGI reference page of value_type hints this is because it's not possible to dereference an output iterator. But that's not the only use of value_type: I might want to instantiate one in order to assign it to the iterator.

    Read the article

  • SFINAE failing with enum template parameter

    - by zeroes00
    Can someone explain the following behaviour (I'm using Visual Studio 2010). header: #pragma once #include <boost\utility\enable_if.hpp> using boost::enable_if_c; enum WeekDay {MONDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY, SUNDAY}; template<WeekDay DAY> typename enable_if_c< DAY==SUNDAY, bool >::type goToWork() {return false;} template<WeekDay DAY> typename enable_if_c< DAY!=SUNDAY, bool >::type goToWork() {return true;} source: bool b = goToWork<MONDAY>(); compiler this gives error C2770: invalid explicit template argument(s) for 'enable_if_c<DAY!=6,bool>::type goToWork(void)' and error C2770: invalid explicit template argument(s) for 'enable_if_c<DAY==6,bool>::type goToWork(void)' But if I change the function template parameter from the enum type WeekDay to int, it compiles fine: template<int DAY> typename enable_if_c< DAY==SUNDAY, bool >::type goToWork() {return false;} template<int DAY> typename enable_if_c< DAY!=SUNDAY, bool >::type goToWork() {return true;} Also the normal function template specialization works fine, no surprises there: template<WeekDay DAY> bool goToWork() {return true;} template<> bool goToWork<SUNDAY>() {return false;} To make things even weirder, if I change the source file to use any other WeekDay than MONDAY or TUESDAY, i.e. bool b = goToWork<THURSDAY>(); the error changes to this: error C2440: 'specialization' : cannot convert from 'int' to 'const WeekDay' Conversion to enumeration type requires an explicit cast (static_cast, C-style cast or function-style cast)

    Read the article

  • C# style Action<T>, Func<T,T>, etc in C++0x

    - by Austin Hyde
    C# has generic function types such as Action<T> or Func<T,U,V,...> With the advent of C++0x and the ability to have template typedef's and variadic template parameters, it seems this should be possible. The obvious solution to me would be this: template <typename T> using Action<T> = void (*)(T); however, this does not accommodate for functors or C++0x lambdas, and beyond that, does not compile with the error "expected unqualified-id before 'using'" My next attempt was to perhaps use boost::function: template <typename T> using Action<T> = boost::function<void (T)>; This doesn't compile either, for the same reason. My only other idea would be STL style template arguments: template <typename T, typename Action> void foo(T value, Action f) { f(value); } But this doesn't provide a strongly typed solution, and is only relevant inside the templated function. Now, I will be the first to admit that I am not the C++ wiz I prefer to think I am, so it's very possible there is an obvious solution I'm not seeing. Is it possible to have C# style generic function types in C++?

    Read the article

  • How to detect whether there is a specific member variable in class?

    - by Kirill V. Lyadvinsky
    For creating algorithm template function I need to know whether x or X (and y or Y) in class that is template argument. It may by useful when using my function for MFC CPoint class or GDI+ PointF class or some others. All of them use different x in them. My solution could be reduces to the following code: template<int> struct TT {typedef int type;}; template<class P> bool Check_x(P p, typename TT<sizeof(&P::x)>::type b = 0) { return true; } template<class P> bool Check_x(P p, typename TT<sizeof(&P::X)>::type b = 0) { return false; } struct P1 {int x; }; struct P2 {float X; }; // it also could be struct P3 {unknown_type X; }; int main() { P1 p1 = {1}; P2 p2 = {1}; Check_x(p1); // must return true Check_x(p2); // must return false return 0; } But it does not compile in Visual Studio, while compiling in the GNU C++. With Visual Studio I could use the following template: template<class P> bool Check_x(P p, typename TT<&P::x==&P::x>::type b = 0) { return true; } template<class P> bool Check_x(P p, typename TT<&P::X==&P::X>::type b = 0) { return false; } But it does not compile in GNU C++. Is there universal solution? UPD: Structures P1 and P2 here are only for example. There are could be any classes with unknown members.

    Read the article

  • lambda traits inconsistency across C++0x compilers

    - by Sumant
    I observed some inconsistency between two compilers (g++ 4.5, VS2010 RC) in the way they match lambdas with partial specializations of class templates. I was trying to implement something like boost::function_types for lambdas to extract type traits. Check this for more details. In g++ 4.5, the type of the operator() of a lambda appears to be like that of a free standing function (R (*)(...)) whereas in VS2010 RC, it appears to be like that of a member function (R (C::*)(...)). So the question is are compiler writers free to interpret any way they want? If not, which compiler is correct? See the details below. template <typename T> struct function_traits : function_traits<decltype(&T::operator())> { // This generic template is instantiated on both the compilers as expected. }; template <typename R, typename C> struct function_traits<R (C::*)() const> { // inherits from this one on VS2010 RC typedef R result_type; }; template <typename R> struct function_traits<R (*)()> { // // inherits from this one g++ 4.5 typedef R result_type; }; int main(void) { auto lambda = []{}; function_traits<decltype(lambda)>::result_type *r; // void * } This program compiles on both g++ 4.5 and VS2010 but the function_traits that are instantiated are different as noted in the code.

    Read the article

  • noncopyable static const member class in template class

    - by Dukales
    I have a non-copyable (inherited from boost::noncopyable) class that I use as a custom namespace. Also, I have another class, that uses previous one, as shown here: #include <boost/utility.hpp> #include <cmath> template< typename F > struct custom_namespace : boost::noncopyable { F sqrt_of_half(F const & x) const { using std::sqrt; return sqrt(x / F(2.0L)); } // ... maybe others are not so dummy const/constexpr methods }; template< typename F > class custom_namespace_user { static ::custom_namespace< F > const custom_namespace_; public : F poisson() const { return custom_namespace_.sqrt_of_half(M_PI); } static F square_diagonal(F const & a) { return a * custom_namespace_.sqrt_of_half(1.0L); } }; template< typename F > ::custom_namespace< F > const custom_namespace_user< F >::custom_namespace_(); this code leads to the next error (even without instantiation): error: no 'const custom_namespace custom_namespace_user::custom_namespace_()' member function declared in class 'custom_namespace_user' The next way is not legitimate: template< typename F ::custom_namespace< F const custom_namespace_user< F ::custom_namespace_ = ::custom_namespace< F (); What should I do to declare this two classes (first as noncopyable static const member class of second)? Is this feaseble?

    Read the article

  • clang does not compile but g++ does

    - by user1095108
    Can someone help me with this code: #include <type_traits> #include <vector> struct nonsense { }; template <struct nonsense const* ptr, typename R> typename std::enable_if<!std::is_void<R>::value, int>::type fo(void* const) { return 0; } template <struct nonsense const* ptr, typename R> typename std::enable_if<std::is_void<R>::value, int>::type fo(void* const) { return 1; } typedef int (*func_type)(void*); template <std::size_t O> void run_me() { static struct nonsense data; typedef std::pair<char const* const, func_type> pair_type; std::vector<pair_type> v; v.push_back(pair_type{ "a", fo<&data, int> }); v.push_back(pair_type{ "b", fo<&data, void> }); } int main(int, char*[]) { run_me<2>(); return 0; } clang-3.3 does not compile this code, but g++-4.8.1 does, which of the two compiler is right? Is something wrong with the code, as I suspect? The error reads: a.cpp:32:15: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'pair_type' (aka 'pair<const char *const, func_type>') v.push_back(pair_type{ "a", fo<&data, int> }); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a.cpp:33:15: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'pair_type' (aka 'pair<const char *const, func_type>') v.push_back(pair_type{ "b", fo<&data, void> }); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Read the article

  • C++ creating generic template function specialisations

    - by Fire Lancer
    I know how to specialise a template function, however what I want to do here is specialise a function for all types which have a given method, eg: template<typename T> void foo(){...} template<typename T, if_exists(T::bar)>void foo(){...}//always use this one if the method T::bar exists T::bar in my classes is static and has different return types. I tried doing this by having an empty base class ("class HasBar{};") for my classes to derive from and using boost::enable_if with boost::is_base_of on my "specialised" version. However the problem then is that for classes that do have bar, the compiler cant resolve which one to use :(. template<typename T> typename boost::enable_if<boost::is_base_of(HasBar, T>, void>::type f() {...} I know that I could use boost::disable_if on the "normal" version, however I do not control the normal version (its provided by a third party library and its expected for specialisations to be made, I just don't really want to make explicit specialisations for my 20 or so classes), nor do I have that much control over the code using these functions, just the classes implementing T::bar and the function that uses it. Is there some way to tell the compiler to "always use this version if possible no matter what" without altering the other versions?

    Read the article

  • How to determine number of function arguments dynamically

    - by Kam
    I have the following code: #include <iostream> #include <functional> class test { public: typedef std::function<bool(int)> Handler; void handler(Handler h){h(5);} }; class test2 { public: template< typename Ret2, typename Ret, typename Class, typename Param> inline Ret2 MemFn(Ret (Class::*f)(Param), int arg_num) { if (arg_num == 1) return std::bind(f, this, std::placeholders::_1); } bool f(int x){ std::cout << x << std::endl; return true;} }; int main() { test t; test2 t2; t.handler(t2.MemFn<test::Handler>(&test2::f, 1)); return 0; } It works as expected. I would like to be able to call this: t.handler(t2.MemFn<test::Handler>(&test2::f)); instead of t.handler(t2.MemFn<test::Handler>(&test2::f, 1)); Basically I need MemFn to determine in runtime what Handler expects as the number of arguments. Is that even possible?

    Read the article

  • C++ Template Classes and Copy Construction

    - by themoondothshine
    Is there any way I can construct an new object from the given object if the template parameters of both objects are identical at run-time? For example: I have a template class with the declaration: template<typename _Type1, typename _Type2> class Object; Next, I have two instantiations of the template: template class Object<char, int>; template class Object<wchar_t, wint_t>; Now, I want to write a member function such as: template<typename _Type1, typename _Type2> Object<char, int> Object<_Type1, _Type2>::toCharObject() { if(__gnu_cxx::__are_same<_Type1, char>::__value) return *this; else { //Perform some kind of conversion and return an Object<char, int> } } I have tried a couple of techniques, such as using __gnu_cxx::__enable_if<__gnu_cxx::__are_same<_Type1, char>::__value, _Type1>::__type in a copy constructor for the Oject class, but I keep running into the error: error: conversion from ‘Object<wchar_t, wint_t>’ to non-scalar type ‘Object<char, int>’ requested Is there no way I can do this? Any help will be greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Class member functions instantiated by traits [policies, actually]

    - by Jive Dadson
    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; }

    Read the article

  • How to determine whether a class has a particular templated member function?

    - by Aozine
    I was wondering if it's possible to extend the SFINAE approach to detecting whether a class has a certain member function (as discussed here: "Is there a Technique in C++ to know if a class has a member function of a given signature?" http://stackoverflow.com/questions/87372/is-there-a-technique-in-c-to-know-if-a-class-has-a-member-function-of-a-given-s ) to support templated member functions? E.g. to be able to detect the function foo in the following class: struct some_class { template < int _n > void foo() { } }; I thought it might be possible to do this for a particular instantiation of foo, (e.g. check to see if void foo< 5 >() is a member) as follows: template < typename _class, int _n > class foo_int_checker { template < typename _t, void (_t::*)() > struct sfinae { }; template < typename _t > static big test( sfinae< _t, &_t::foo< _n > > * ); template < typename _t > static small test( ... ); public: enum { value = sizeof( test< _class >( 0 ) ) == sizeof( big ) }; }; Then do foo_int_checker< some_class, 5 >::value to check whether some_class has the member void foo< 5 >(). However on MSVC++ 2008 this always returns false while g++ gives the following syntax errors at the line test( sfinae< _t, &_t::foo< _n > > ); test.cpp:24: error: missing `>' to terminate the template argument list test.cpp:24: error: template argument 2 is invalid test.cpp:24: error: expected unqualified-id before '<' token test.cpp:24: error: expected `,' or `...' before '<' token test.cpp:24: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of `parameter' with no type Both seem to fail because I'm trying to get the address of a template function instantiation from a type that is itself a template parameter. Does anyone know whether this is possible or if it's disallowed by the standard for some reason? EDIT: It seems that I missed out the ::template syntax to get g++ to compile the above code correctly. If I change the bit where I get the address of the function to &_t::template foo< _n > then the program compiles, but I get the same behaviour as MSVC++ (value is always set to false). If I comment out the ... overload of test to force the compiler to pick the other one, I get the following compiler error in g++: test.cpp: In instantiation of `foo_int_checker<A, 5>': test.cpp:40: instantiated from here test.cpp:32: error: invalid use of undefined type `class foo_int_checker<A, 5>' test.cpp:17: error: declaration of `class foo_int_checker<A, 5>' test.cpp:32: error: enumerator value for `value' not integer constant where line 32 is the enum { value = sizeof( test< _class >( 0 ) ) == sizeof( big ) }; line. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to help me diagnose the problem :(. MSVC++ gives a similar nondescript error: error C2770: invalid explicit template argument(s) for 'clarity::meta::big checker<_checked_type>::test(checker<_checked_type>::sfinae<_t,&_t::template foo<5>> *)' on the same line. What's strange is that if I get the address from a specific class and not a template parameter (i.e. rather than &_t::template foo< _n > I do &some_class::template foo< _n >) then I get the correct result, but then my checker class is limited to checking a single class (some_class) for the function. Also, if I do the following: template < typename _t, void (_t::*_f)() > void f0() { } template < typename _t > void f1() { f0< _t, &_t::template foo< 5 > >(); } and call f1< some_class >() then I DON'T get a compile error on &_t::template foo< 5 >. This suggests that the problem only arises when getting the address of a templated member function from a type that is itself a template parameter while in a SFINAE context. Argh!

    Read the article

  • Implement the Combine function using templates

    - by gkid123
    any idea on how to do it for template? thanks Implement the Combine function using templates. The Combine fn applies a function of two arguments cumulatively to the items of an STL container, from begin() to end(), so as to reduce the sequence to a single value. For example, Combine(<list containing 6,3,1,9,7>, std::plus<int>()) should calculate ((((6+3)+1)+9)+7). class NotEnoughElements {}; template <typename Container, typename Function> typename Container::value_type Combine(const Container& c, Function fn) throw (NotEnoughElements) { your code goes here }

    Read the article

  • Function template overloading: link error

    - by matt
    I'm trying to overload a "display" method as follows: template <typename T> void imShow(T* img, int ImgW, int ImgH); template <typename T1, typename T2> void imShow(T1* img1, T2* img2, int ImgW, int ImgH); I am then calling the template with unsigned char* im1 and char* im2: imShow(im1, im2, ImgW, ImgH); This compiles fine, but i get a link error "unresolved external symbol" for: imShow<unsigned char,char>(unsigned char *,char *,int,int) I don't understand what I did wrong!

    Read the article

  • Custom Memory Allocator for STL map

    - by Prasoon Tiwari
    This question is about construction of instances of custom allocator during insertion into a std::map. Here is a custom allocator for std::map<int,int> along with a small program that uses it: #include <stddef.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <map> #include <typeinfo> class MyPool { public: void * GetNext() { return malloc(24); } void Free(void *ptr) { free(ptr); } }; template<typename T> class MyPoolAlloc { public: static MyPool *pMyPool; typedef size_t size_type; typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type; typedef T* pointer; typedef const T* const_pointer; typedef T& reference; typedef const T& const_reference; typedef T value_type; template<typename X> struct rebind { typedef MyPoolAlloc<X> other; }; MyPoolAlloc() throw() { printf("-------Alloc--CONSTRUCTOR--------%08x %32s\n", this, typeid(T).name()); } MyPoolAlloc(const MyPoolAlloc&) throw() { printf(" Copy Constructor ---------------%08x %32s\n", this, typeid(T).name()); } template<typename X> MyPoolAlloc(const MyPoolAlloc<X>&) throw() { printf(" Construct T Alloc from X Alloc--%08x %32s %32s\n", this, typeid(T).name(), typeid(X).name()); } ~MyPoolAlloc() throw() { printf(" Destructor ---------------------%08x %32s\n", this, typeid(T).name()); }; pointer address(reference __x) const { return &__x; } const_pointer address(const_reference __x) const { return &__x; } pointer allocate(size_type __n, const void * hint = 0) { if (__n != 1) perror("MyPoolAlloc::allocate: __n is not 1.\n"); if (NULL == pMyPool) { pMyPool = new MyPool(); printf("======>Creating a new pool object.\n"); } return reinterpret_cast<T*>(pMyPool->GetNext()); } //__p is not permitted to be a null pointer void deallocate(pointer __p, size_type __n) { pMyPool->Free(reinterpret_cast<void *>(__p)); } size_type max_size() const throw() { return size_t(-1) / sizeof(T); } void construct(pointer __p, const T& __val) { printf("+++++++ %08x %s.\n", __p, typeid(T).name()); ::new(__p) T(__val); } void destroy(pointer __p) { printf("-+-+-+- %08x.\n", __p); __p->~T(); } }; template<typename T> inline bool operator==(const MyPoolAlloc<T>&, const MyPoolAlloc<T>&) { return true; } template<typename T> inline bool operator!=(const MyPoolAlloc<T>&, const MyPoolAlloc<T>&) { return false; } template<typename T> MyPool* MyPoolAlloc<T>::pMyPool = NULL; int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { std::map<int, int, std::less<int>, MyPoolAlloc<std::pair<const int,int> > > m; //random insertions in the map m.insert(std::pair<int,int>(1,2)); m[5] = 7; m[8] = 11; printf("======>End of map insertions.\n"); return 0; } Here is the output of this program: -------Alloc--CONSTRUCTOR--------bffcdaa6 St4pairIKiiE Construct T Alloc from X Alloc--bffcda77 St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE St4pairIKiiE Copy Constructor ---------------bffcdad8 St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE Destructor ---------------------bffcda77 St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE Destructor ---------------------bffcdaa6 St4pairIKiiE ======Creating a new pool object. Construct T Alloc from X Alloc--bffcd9df St4pairIKiiE St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE +++++++ 0985d028 St4pairIKiiE. Destructor ---------------------bffcd9df St4pairIKiiE Construct T Alloc from X Alloc--bffcd95f St4pairIKiiE St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE +++++++ 0985d048 St4pairIKiiE. Destructor ---------------------bffcd95f St4pairIKiiE Construct T Alloc from X Alloc--bffcd95f St4pairIKiiE St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE +++++++ 0985d068 St4pairIKiiE. Destructor ---------------------bffcd95f St4pairIKiiE ======End of map insertions. Construct T Alloc from X Alloc--bffcda23 St4pairIKiiE St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE -+-+-+- 0985d068. Destructor ---------------------bffcda23 St4pairIKiiE Construct T Alloc from X Alloc--bffcda43 St4pairIKiiE St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE -+-+-+- 0985d048. Destructor ---------------------bffcda43 St4pairIKiiE Construct T Alloc from X Alloc--bffcda43 St4pairIKiiE St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE -+-+-+- 0985d028. Destructor ---------------------bffcda43 St4pairIKiiE Destructor ---------------------bffcdad8 St13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKiiEE Last two columns of the output show that an allocator for std::pair<const int, int> is constructed everytime there is a insertion into the map. Why is this necessary? Is there a way to suppress this? Thanks! Edit: This code tested on x86 machine with g++ version 4.1.2. If you wish to run it on a 64-bit machine, you'll have to change at least the line return malloc(24). Changing to return malloc(48) should work.

    Read the article

  • boost::enable_if class template method

    - by aaa
    I got class with template methods that looks at this: struct undefined {}; template<typename T> struct is_undefined : mpl::false_ {}; template<> struct is_undefined<undefined> : mpl::true_ {}; template<class C> struct foo { template<class F, class V> typename boost::disable_if<is_undefined<C> >::type apply(const F &f, const V &variables) { } template<class F, class V> typename boost::enable_if<is_undefined<C> >::type apply(const F &f, const V &variables) { } }; apparently, both templates are instantiated, resulting in compile time error. is instantiation of template methods different from instantiation of free functions? I have fixed this differently, but I would like to know what is up. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Templates --> How to decipher, decide if necessary and create?

    - by ML
    Hi All, I have a few classes in a project that I inherited that are really old, last I knew they compiled with CodeWarrior 8. I am not in XCode 3.2 Here is an example of what I struggle with: template <class registeredObject> typename std::vector<registeredObject>::iterator FxRegistry<registeredObject>::begin(void) { return mRegistryList.begin(); } The errors are: no 'typename std::vector<registeredObject, std::allocator<_CharT> >::iterator FxRegistry<registeredObject>::begin()' member function declared in class 'FxRegistry<registeredObject>' template definition of non-template 'typename std::vector<registeredObject, std::allocator<_CharT> >::iterator FxRegistry<registeredObject>::begin()' How do I decide how to solve these and where do I start looking?

    Read the article

  • Strange Template error : error C2783: could not deduce template argument

    - by osum
    Hi, I have created a simple function with 2 diffrernt template arguments t1, t2 and return type t3. So far no compilation error. But when Itry to call the function from main, I encounter error C2783. I needed to know If the following code is legally ok? If not how is it fixed? please help! template <typename t1, typename t2, typename t3> t3 adder1 (t1 a , t2 b) { return int(a + b); }; int main() { int sum = adder1(1,6.0); // error C2783 could not deduce template argument for t3 return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Why this works (Templates, SFINAE). C++

    - by atch
    Hi guys, reffering to yesterday's post, this woke me up this morning. Why this actually works? As long as the fnc test is concerned this fnc has no body so how can perform anything? Why and how this works? I'm REALLY interested to see your answers. template<typename T> class IsClassT { private: typedef char One; typedef struct { char a[2]; } Two; template<typename C> static One test(int C::*); //NO BODY HERE template<typename C> static Two test(…); //NOR HERE public: enum { Yes = sizeof(IsClassT<T>::test<T>(0)) == 1 }; enum { No = !Yes }; }; Thanks in advance with help to understand this very interesting fenomena.

    Read the article

  • C++ Boost bind value type

    - by aaa
    hello. I look in documentation and source code but cannot figure out how to get return value type of boost bind functor. I am trying to accomplish following: 35 template<typename T,size_t N, class F> 36 boost::array<typename F::value_type, N> make_array(T (&input)[N], F unary) { 37 boost::array<typename F::value_type, N> array; 38 std::transform(input, input + N, array.begin(), unary); 39 return array; 40 } where F can be bind functor. the above does not work because functor does not have value_type. for that matter, is there standard interface for unary/binary functor as far as return value. Thanks

    Read the article

  • C++ - checking if a class has a certain method at compile time

    - by jetwolf
    Here's a question for the C++ gurus out there. Is there a way to check at compile time where a type has a certain method, and do one thing if it does, and another thing if it doesn't? Basically, I have a template function template <typename T> void function(T t); and I it to behave a certain way if T has a method g(), and another way if it doesn't. Perhaps there is something that can be used together with boost's enable_if? Something like this: template <typename T> enable_if<has_method<T, g, void ()>, void>::type function(T t) { // Superior implementation calling t.g() } template <typename T> disable_if<has_method<T, g, void ()>, void>::type function(T t) { // Inferior implementation in the case where T doesn't have a method g() } "has_method" would be something that preferably checks both that T has a method named 'g', and that the method has the correct signature (in this case, void ()). Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Implicit constructor available for all types derived from Base excepted the current type?

    - by Vincent
    The following code sum up my problem : template<class Parameter> class Base {}; template<class Parameter1, class Parameter2, class Parameter> class Derived1 : public Base<Parameter> { }; template<class Parameter1, class Parameter2, class Parameter> class Derived2 : public Base<Parameter> { public : // Copy constructor Derived2(const Derived2& x); // An EXPLICIT constructor that does a special conversion for a Derived2 // with other template parameters template<class OtherParameter1, class OtherParameter2, class OtherParameter> explicit Derived2( const Derived2<OtherParameter1, OtherParameter2, OtherParameter>& x ); // Now the problem : I want an IMPLICIT constructor that will work for every // type derived from Base EXCEPT // Derived2<OtherParameter1, OtherParameter2, OtherParameter> template<class Type, class = typename std::enable_if</* SOMETHING */>::type> Derived2(const Type& x); }; How to restrict an implicit constructor to all classes derived from the parent class excepted the current class whatever its template parameters, considering that I already have an explicit constructor as in the example code ? EDIT : For the implicit constructor from Base, I can obviously write : template<class OtherParameter> Derived2(const Base<OtherParameter>& x); But in that case, do I have the guaranty that the compiler will not use this constructor as an implicit constructor for Derived2<OtherParameter1, OtherParameter2, OtherParameter> ? EDIT2: Here I have a test : (LWS here : http://liveworkspace.org/code/cd423fb44fb4c97bc3b843732d837abc) #include <iostream> template<typename Type> class Base {}; template<typename Type> class Other : public Base<Type> {}; template<typename Type> class Derived : public Base<Type> { public: Derived() {std::cout<<"empty"<<std::endl;} Derived(const Derived<Type>& x) {std::cout<<"copy"<<std::endl;} template<typename OtherType> explicit Derived(const Derived<OtherType>& x) {std::cout<<"explicit"<<std::endl;} template<typename OtherType> Derived(const Base<OtherType>& x) {std::cout<<"implicit"<<std::endl;} }; int main() { Other<int> other0; Other<double> other1; std::cout<<"1 = "; Derived<int> dint1; // <- empty std::cout<<"2 = "; Derived<int> dint2; // <- empty std::cout<<"3 = "; Derived<double> ddouble; // <- empty std::cout<<"4 = "; Derived<double> ddouble1(ddouble); // <- copy std::cout<<"5 = "; Derived<double> ddouble2(dint1); // <- explicit std::cout<<"6 = "; ddouble = other0; // <- implicit std::cout<<"7 = "; ddouble = other1; // <- implicit std::cout<<"8 = "; ddouble = ddouble2; // <- nothing (normal : default assignment) std::cout<<"\n9 = "; ddouble = Derived<double>(dint1); // <- explicit std::cout<<"10 = "; ddouble = dint2; // <- implicit : WHY ?!?! return 0; } The last line worry me. Is it ok with the C++ standard ? Is it a bug of g++ ?

    Read the article

  • C++ Boost bind value type {solved}

    - by aaa
    hello. I look in documentation and source code but cannot figure out how to get return value type of boost bind functor. I am trying to accomplish following: 35 template<typename T,size_t N, class F> 36 boost::array<typename F::value_type, N> make_array(T (&input)[N], F unary) { 37 boost::array<typename F::value_type, N> array; 38 std::transform(input, input + N, array.begin(), unary); 39 return array; 40 } where F can be bind functor. the above does not work because functor does not have value_type. for that matter, is there standard interface for unary/binary functor as far as return value. solution: it should be result_type. also equivalent defined are argument_type and first/second_argument_type for binary functions Thanks

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >