views:

110

answers:

6

I'm creating a function (possibly member function, not that it matters... maybe it does?) that needs to accept an unknown number of arguments, but I want all of them to be the same type. I know I could pass in an array or vector, but I want to be able to accept the list of args directly without extra structure or even extra brackets. It doesn't look like variadic functions by themselves are typesafe, and I wasn't sure how to go about this w/ variadic template functions. Here's essentially what I'm aiming for (more than likely not correct code, and totally not for the purpose of getting lists of dragons, lol):

//typedef for dragon_list_t up here somewhere.

enum Maiden {
    Eunice
    , Beatrice
    , Una_Brow
    , Helga
    , Aida
};

dragon_list_t make_dragon_list(Maiden...) {
    //here be dragons
}

OR

template<Maiden... Maidens> dragon_list_t make_dragon_list(Maidens...) {
    //here be dragons
}

USAGE

dragon_list_t dragons_to_slay
    = make_dragon_list(Maiden.Eunice, Maiden.Helga, Maiden.Aida)
;

Tried a few things similar to the above already, no dice. Suggestions? Obvious oversights I may have made? I know it may not be a huge deal to do this instead:

dragon_list_t make_dragon_list(std::array<Maiden> maidens) {
    //here be dragons.
}
dragon_list_t dragons_to_slay
    = make_dragon_list({Maiden.Eunice, Maiden.Helga, Maiden.Aida})
;

but I'd much rather be able to do it the first way if possible.

+4  A: 

Since you've included the C++0x tag, the obvious answer would be to look up initializer lists. An initializer list lets you specify a number of arguments to a ctor that will be automatically converted to a single data structure for processing by the ctor.

Their primary (exclusive?) use is for exactly the sort of situation you've mentioned, passing a number of arguments of the same type to use in creating some sort of list/array/other collection of objects. It'll be supported by (for one example) std::vector, so you could use something like:

std::vector<dragon> dragons_to_slay{Eunice, Helga, Aida};

to create a vector of three dragon objects. Most (all?) of the other collections will include the same, so if you really insist on a list of dragons you should be able to get that pretty easily as well.

Jerry Coffin
Didn't even think to look at init lists, thanks for the suggestion. Still chewing on all these answers :\
pheadbaq
+1  A: 

It really depends what you're trying to implement, exactly.

Usually enum indicates runtime subtypes of a particular class, or a discriminated union (boost::variant). But in this case, you want to pass the enum directly. Moreover, you have a limited set of possible values, and each function call forms a subset. Really what you are representing is one subset, not several parameters at all.

The best way to represent a subset of a finite set is a bitset. Large sets should use std::bitset; small sets can just use unsigned long.

enum Maiden_set {
    Eunice = 1,
    , Beatrice = 2
    , Una_Brow = 4
    , Helga = 8
    , Aida = 16
};

dragon_list_t make_dragon_list(Maiden_set) {
    //here be dragons
}

make_dragon_list( Eunice + Beatrice + Helga );

or, since you appear to want to handle variation at compile time,

template< int Maidens > // parameter is not a Maiden_set because enum+enum=int
dragon_list_t make_dragon_list() {
    //here be dragons
}

make_dragon_list< Eunice + Beatrice + Helga >(); // + promotes each enum to int

It should be possible to generate the powers of 2 automatically using an operator+ overloaded on the enum type. But I'm not sure I'm on the right track at all.

Potatoswatter
You can compile-time bitshift, that is, `enum { first_value = 1, second_value = 1 << 1, third_value = 1 << 2 };`
DeadMG
@DeadMG: I'd write it that way, but you'd be surprised how many readers have never seen that operator before.
Potatoswatter
I have, but out of curiosity, would there be any concerns about bit-endianness? I know that's probably obscure. I don't know what CPUs that would be an issue with, and it's not like I'm trying to build something that's 100% cross-platform or anything. Just curious.
pheadbaq
Well, since you don't care which bit is set, only that each flag corresponds to one bit, then there's no reason that endianness or portability should break the code. As long as you don't try to set more bits than exist in the backing type, you're fine.
DeadMG
@pheadbaq: No, a bitset encoding is just a number like any other, so (Eunice+Beatrice+Helga) = 1+2+8 = 11 is no more endianness-sensitive than simply writing the number 11.
Potatoswatter
+1  A: 

In short, you should probably just create a vector. It isn't that much overhead, especially if you use something like boost::list_of or C++0x's initializer list. The syntactic overhead is minimal, and it is more flexible (you could pass list with a number of arguments known only at runtime).

If you really wanted, you could use variadic template parameters to do this:

// Using pass-by-value since I'm assuming it is primitive:

template< typename T, typename... Args>
void make_dragon_list_internal( dragon_list_t* dragon_list, T t, Args... args )
{
   // add T to dragon_list.
   make_dragon_list_internal( dragon_list, args... );
}

void make_dragon_list_internal( dragon_list_t* dragon_list )
{
   // Finalize dragon_list.
}

template<typename... Args>
dragon_list_t make_dragon_list( Args... args )
{
  dragon_list_t dragon_list;
  make_dragon_list_internal( &dragon_list, args... );
  return dragon_list;
}

It's typesafe, and extensible (you could make this take things other than dragons, if you feel like).

Todd Gardner
Err, and by typesafe, I mean, as typesafe as the underlying type, which for a non-class enum isn't very much.
Todd Gardner
+5  A: 

You can just accept the arguments by the variadic template and let typechecking check the validity later on when they are converted.

You can check convertibility on the function interface level though, to make use of overload resolution for rejecting outright wrong arguments for example, by using SFINAE

template<typename R, typename...> struct fst { typedef R type; };

template<typename ...Args>
typename fst<void, 
  typename enable_if<
    is_convertible<Args, ToType>::value
  >::type...
>::type 
f(Args...);

For your use-case if you know the steps to go from an std::array<> to your dragon_list_t then you have already solved it though according to the first option above ("convert-later"):

template<typename ...Items>
dragon_list_t make_dragon_list(Items... maidens) {
    std::array<Maiden, sizeof...(Items)> arr = {{ maidens ... }};
    // here be dragons
}

If you combine this with the above is_convertible approach you have a reject-early template that also does overload resolution on arguments and rejects them if not applicable.

Johannes Schaub - litb
+1 for giving OP exactly what he asked for, although it's for better or worse
Potatoswatter
I haven't played around with the variadic templates enough to know if the early convertible is called for, but +1 the std::array conversion, didn't think of that.
Todd Gardner
Hmm, I think the reject-early template isn't that good for general case. If Dragon was a base class, then your first argument (or all your arguments), may be a derived class, and therefor not convertible to each other. When dragon is an enum, it could be the same thing if your first class is convertible to integer type but not an integer type itself. I think relying on overloading is more extensible.
Todd Gardner
@Todd the reject-early template checks only convertibility of the arguments to `ToType` (`Dragon`), not of the arguments to each other. So D1->B is checked and D2->B too, but D1->D2 is not checked.
Johannes Schaub - litb
Ah, missed that. right.
Todd Gardner
Out of curiosity, if the convert-later option were implemented in a library that another dev was using, what kind of error would they see if they didn't have the implementation for make_dragon_list, just a header, and they fed it the wrong types? Would that not even be a valid concern, or would it be a reason to favor the reject-early option?
pheadbaq
@pheadbaq i have no idea. It really depends on the very code within the template. But it won't be nice i think
Johannes Schaub - litb
A: 

I would try to keep things simple, and the simplest solution I can think of is just using a plain old vector. By using C++0x features you can get a syntax that is similar to (even if not exactly) what you want:

void foo( std::vector<int> const & v ) {
   std::copy( v.begin(), v.end(), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, " ") );
}
int main() {
  foo({ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }); // note the extra {}
}
David Rodríguez - dribeas
+1  A: 

If you don't use template on the parameter not in the pack the variadic function will resolve to have all arguments of the same type.

Here's an example for an extended max function that only accepts ints (or types convertible to int).

int maximum(int n) // last argument must be an `int`
{
    return n;
}

template<typename... Args>
int maximum(int n, Args... args) // first argument must be an int
{
    return std::max(n, maximum(args...));
}

Explanation: When you unpack the argument pack (args...) the compiler looks for the best overload. If the pack had only one parameter then the only candidate is maximum(int) so the only parameter must be and of type int (or convertible to int). If there are more than one elements in the pack then the only candidate is maximum(int, typename...) so the first argument must be of type int (or convertible to int). It's simple to prove by induction that all the types in the pack must be of a type convertible to int).

Motti
Interesting... can't say I understand why this works, any info/links on that?
pheadbaq
@pheadbaq, I've added an explanation in my answer.
Motti