views:

274

answers:

4

Hello, I have the following code that compiles and works well:

template<typename T>
T GetGlobal(const char *name);

template<>
int GetGlobal<int>(const char *name);

template<>
double GetGlobal<double>(const char *name);

However I want to remove the "default" function. That is, I want to make all calls to GetGlobal<t> where 't' is not an int or a double an error.

For example, GetGlobal<char>() should be a compile time error.

I tried to just delete the default function, but, as I imagined, I received a lot of errors.. So is there a way to "disable" it and allow calls only to the specialized versions of the function?

Thanks!

+15  A: 

To get a compile-time error implement it as:

template<typename T>
T GetGlobal(const char *name) { T::unimplemented_function; }
// `unimplemented_function` identifier should be undefined

If you use Boost you could make it more elegant:

template<typename T>
T GetGlobal(const char *name) { BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(T) == 0); }

C++ Standard guarantees that there is no such type which has sizeof equal to 0, so you'll get a compile-time error.

As sbi suggested in his comments the last could be reduced to:

template<typename T>
T GetGlobal(const char *name) { char X[!sizeof(T)]; }

I prefer the first solution, because it gives more clear error message (at least in Visual C++) than the others.

Kirill V. Lyadvinsky
In order for the first case to fail at _compile-time_, Koper would need an _undeclared_ function, not an _undefined_ one. And the only way to get this to compile is to make it dependent on `T`. Something like `T::some_thing_that_is_definitely_undeclared` might do. (The second one could probably be mimicked with `char dummy[!sizeof(T)];`.)
sbi
Using `unimplemented_function` gives more clear error message (at least in Visual C++) than using `T::unimplemented_function`.
Kirill V. Lyadvinsky
@Kirill: Using `unimplemented_function` won't work in a compiler that does two-phase lookup. (Currently, VC doesn't do this.) Such a compiler won't compile the template _definition_, even though it's never instantiated.
sbi
BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(false) should work too :-)
Rexxar
-1: SBI is correct. The identifier is looked up and as it is not a fucntion call with a dependent argument (ie. an ADL call) then it will be an error. Please fix the example - and get your point back! :)
Richard Corden
Fixed, now it works in GNU C++ too.
Kirill V. Lyadvinsky
Compilers are allowed to moan for `char X[!sizeof(T)];` too. But as far as i know, no one does really. The reason is that the Standard allows them to reject any template definitions for which never a valid specialization can be instantiated, regardless of the template arguments. This is the case here. Most implementations however "behave" and don't error out at the definition. So i'll +1 you xD Small tip: `BOOST_MPL_ASSERT` produces far better "error messages" than `BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT`.
Johannes Schaub - litb
Something like this `template<typename T> struct not_defined : mpl::false_ { }; template<typename T> T GetGlobal(char const *name) { BOOST_MPL_ASSERT(( not_defined<T> )); }` will give some nice error: http://codepad.org/rq30wdeq .
Johannes Schaub - litb
+3  A: 

I would suggest not to actually provide an implementation, just a bare declaration of the method.

The other option would be to use a compile-time assert. Boost has a number of such beasts.

namespace mpl = boost::mpl;
BOOST_MPL_ASSERT((mpl::or_< boost::same_type<T, double>,
                            boost::same_type<T, int> >));

There is also its message version counterpart, which would help.

Matthieu M.
+1. mpl's asserts are very nice :)
Johannes Schaub - litb
+5  A: 

If you don't implement it, you'll at least get a linker error. If you want a compile-time error, you could do this with class templates:

template<typename T>
struct GlobalGetter;

template<>
struct GlobalGetter<int> {
  static int GetGlobal(const char *name);
};

template<>
struct GlobalGetter<double> {
  static double GetGlobal(const char *name);
};

template<typename T>
T GetGlobal(const char *name)
{
  return GlobalGetter<T>::GetGlobal(name);
}
sbi
Any idea _why_ a template function forward declaration doesn't yield a compiler error, while a template class forward declaration does?
xtofl
Too much writings if you have much more specializations than for 'int' and 'double'.
Kirill V. Lyadvinsky
What is `GlobalGetter<T>(name)`? Constructor? There is no constructor with single argument in `GlobalGetter<int>` and `GlobalGetter<double>`.
Alexey Malistov
@Alexey: It's a brainfart. Sorry, I fixed it.
sbi
@xtofl: Because a function template declaration is all that you need to compile calls to a function. (Whereas for classes you need the definition.)
sbi
@Kiril: Instead of writing a function template specialization, you write a specialization for a class template which only contains one stat function. Yes, it's a few more keystrokes to type, but it's not that bad. However, your second solution (the one using `STATIC_ASSRT` I like, too.
sbi
+1  A: 

The following are alternative techniques to using boost:

Declare a typedef to a dependent name

This works because name lookup for DONT only occurs when 'T' has been replaced. This is a similar (but legal) version of the example given by Kirill

template <typename T>
T GetGlobal (const char * name) {
    typedef typename T::DONT CALL_THIS_FUNCTION;
}

Use an incomplete return type

This technique doesn't work for specializations, but it will work for overloads. The idea is that its legal to declare a function which returns an incomplete type, but not to call it:

template <typename T>
class DONT_CALL_THIS_FUNCTION GetGlobal (const char * name);
Richard Corden