Hi,
I have reworked the code to be more generic and to reduce the hardcore coding as possible (@Matthieu M.). But I would like to explain why I'm doing all this before.
I have, as many developer embraced the new c++0x standard in my code and I'm quit happy about it. But I have an issue with the strongly typed enums when trying to write test units.
The problem is that you cannot generate a random strong typed enum (I know, that you can, but wanted to do it in a more elegant way). So, now with this code, I can, using variadic templates and variadic macro (yes old dirty macro) declare and randomly select a strongly typed and scoped enum.
here is the code:
#include<vector>
#include<iostream>
#include <boost/preprocessor/array/elem.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/repetition/repeat.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/repetition/repeat_from_to.hpp>
using namespace std;
template<typename T, T... values> class sp_enum;
template<typename T> class sp_enum<T>{
protected: static const unsigned _count = 0;
};
template<typename T, T head, T... values>
class sp_enum<T, head, values...> : public sp_enum<T, values...>{
protected:
static const unsigned _count = sp_enum<T, values...>::_count+1;
static vector<T> _data;
public:
sp_enum( ) : sp_enum<T, values...>(values...) {_data.push_back(head);for(auto i= sp_enum<T, values...>::_data.begin();i != sp_enum<T, values...>::_data.end();++i){_data.push_back(*i);}}
sp_enum(T v ) {_data.push_back(v );}
sp_enum(T v, T...) : sp_enum<T, values...>(values...) {_data.push_back(v );for(auto i= sp_enum<T, values...>::_data.begin();i != sp_enum<T, values...>::_data.end();++i){_data.push_back(*i);}}
vector<T> data() const { return _data ;}
unsigned count() const { return _count ;}
static T randomEnum() { srand (time(NULL));return _data[rand()%_count];}
};
template<typename T, T head, T... values> vector<T> sp_enum<T, head, values...>::_data;
#define PP_NARG(...) PP_NARG_(__VA_ARGS__,PP_RSEQ_N())
#define PP_NARG_(...) PP_ARG_N(__VA_ARGS__)
#define PP_ARG_N( \
_1, _2, _3, _4, _5, _6, _7, _8, _9,_10, _11,_12,_13,_14,_15,_16,_17,_18,_19,_20, \
_21,_22,_23,_24,_25,_26,_27,_28,_29,_30, _31,_32,_33,_34,_35,_36,_37,_38,_39,_40, \
_41,_42,_43,_44,_45,_46,_47,_48,_49,_50, _51,_52,_53,_54,_55,_56,_57,_58,_59,_60, \
_61,_62,_63,N,...) N
#define PP_RSEQ_N() \
63,62,61,60,59,58,57,56,55,54,53,52,51,50,49,48,47,46,45,44,43,42,41,40, \
39,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,30,29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21,20,19,18,17,16, \
15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0
#define FOREACH_ARRAY( ... ) (PP_NARG(__VA_ARGS__) , ( __VA_ARGS__ ) )
#define FOREACH( Name, A, ... ) BOOST_PP_REPEAT_FROM_TO(1, PP_NARG(Name, __VA_ARGS__), A, FOREACH_ARRAY(Name, __VA_ARGS__) )
#define DECORATION(z,n,data) ,BOOST_PP_ARRAY_ELEM( 0, data ) :: BOOST_PP_ARRAY_ELEM( n, data )
#define SP_ENUM(enumName, ...) \
enum class _##enumName : unsigned { Default, __VA_ARGS__ }; \
typedef sp_enum<_##enumName FOREACH( _##enumName, DECORATION, Default, __VA_ARGS__) > enumName;
SP_ENUM( xx, test1, test2, test3 )
int main(){
xx test;
cout <<test.count() << endl << test.data().size() << endl;
auto dt = test.data();
for(auto i = dt.rbegin(); i != dt.rend();++i){ cout<< (unsigned)*i << ":" ; }
cout << "random strongly typed enum : " << (unsigned) test.randomEnum() << endl;
}
What bother me now, is the limitation of the PP_NARG macro (I haven't found any other way to count the number of argument).
I will gladly accept any pointer or hint to enhance this.