Search Results

Search found 22083 results on 884 pages for 'display templates'.

Page 119/884 | < Previous Page | 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126  | Next Page >

  • C++ CRTP question

    - by aaa
    following piece of code does not compile, the problem is in T::rank not be inaccessible (I think) or uninitialized in parent template. Can you tell me exactly what the problem is? is passing rank explicitly the only way? or is there a way to query tensor class directly? Thank you #include <boost/utility/enable_if.hpp> template<class T, // size_t N, class enable = void> struct tensor_operator; // template<class T, size_t N> template<class T> struct tensor_operator<T, typename boost::enable_if_c< T::rank == 4>::type > { tensor_operator(T &tensor) : tensor_(tensor) {} T& operator()(int i,int j,int k,int l) { return tensor_.layout.element_at(i, j, k, l); } T &tensor_; }; template<size_t N, typename T = double> // struct tensor : tensor_operator<tensor<N,T>, N> { struct tensor : tensor_operator<tensor<N,T> > { static const size_t rank = N; }; I know the workaround, however am interested in mechanics of template instantiation for self-education

    Read the article

  • Better way to write an object generator for an RAII template class?

    - by Dan
    I would like to write an object generator for a templated RAII class -- basically a function template to construct an object using type deduction of parameters so the types don't have to be specified explicitly. The problem I foresee is that the helper function that takes care of type deduction for me is going to return the object by value, which will result in a premature call to the RAII destructor when the copy is made. Perhaps C++0x move semantics could help but that's not an option for me. Anyone seen this problem before and have a good solution? This is what I have: template<typename T, typename U, typename V> class FooAdder { private: typedef OtherThing<T, U, V> Thing; Thing &thing_; int a_; // many other members public: FooAdder(Thing &thing, int a); ~FooAdder(); void foo(T t, U u); void bar(V v); }; The gist is that OtherThing has a horrible interface, and FooAdder is supposed to make it easier to use. The intended use is roughly like this: FooAdder(myThing, 2) .foo(3, 4) .foo(5, 6) .bar(7) .foo(8, 9); The FooAdder constructor initializes some internal data structures. The foo and bar methods populate those data structures. The ~FooAdder dtor wraps things up and calls a method on thing_, taking care of all the nastiness. That would work fine if FooAdder wasn't a template. But since it is, I would need to put the types in, more like this: FooAdder<Abc, Def, Ghi>(myThing, 2) ... That's annoying, because the types can be inferred based on myThing. So I would prefer to create a templated object generator, similar to std::make_pair, that will do the type deduction for me. Something like this: template<typename T, typename U, typename V> FooAdder<T, U, V> AddFoo(Thing &thing, int a) { return FooAdder<T, U, V>(thing, a); } That seems problematic: because it returns by value, the stack temporary object will be destructed, which will cause the RAII dtor to run prematurely. One thought I had was to give FooAdder a copy ctor with move semantics, kinda like std::auto_ptr. But I would like to do this without dynamic memory allocation, so I thought the copy ctor could set a flag within FooAdder indicating the dtor shouldn't do the wrap-up. Like this: FooAdder(FooAdder &rhs) // Note: rhs is not const : thing_(rhs.thing_) , a_(rhs.a_) , // etc... lots of other members, annoying. , moved(false) { rhs.moved = true; } ~FooAdder() { if (!moved) { // do whatever it would have done } } Seems clunky. Anyone got a better way?

    Read the article

  • "Automatic" class proxy in C++

    - by PierreBdR
    I need to allow the user to change members of two data structures of the same type at the same time. For example: struct Foo { int a, b; } Foo a1 = {1,2}, a2 = {3,4}; dual(a1,a2)->a = 5; // Now a1 = {5,2} and a2 = {5,2} I have a class that works and that change first a1 and then copy a1 into a2. This is fine as long as: the class copied is small the user doesn't mind about everything being copied, not only the part modified. Is there a way to obtain this behavior: dual(a1,a2)->a = 5; // Now a1 = {5,2} and a2 = {5,4} I am opened to alternative syntax, but they should stay simple, and I would like to avoid things like: set_members(a1, a2, &Foo::a, 5); members(a1, a2, &Foo::a) = 5; or anything involving specifying explictely &Foo::

    Read the article

  • inspect C++ template instantiation

    - by aaa
    hello. Is there some utility which would allow me to inspect template instantiation? my compiler is g++ or Intel. Specific points I would like: Step by step instantiation. Instantiation backtrace (can hack this by crashing compiler. Better method?) Inspection of template parameters. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Member function overloading/template specialization issue

    - by Ferruccio
    I've been trying to call the overloaded table::scan_index(std::string, ...) member function without success. For the sake of clarity, I have stripped out all non-relevant code. I have a class called table which has an overloaded/templated member function named scan_index() in order to handle strings as a special case. class table : boost::noncopyable { public: template <typename T> void scan_index(T val, std::function<bool (uint recno, T val)> callback) { // code } void scan_index(std::string val, std::function<bool (uint recno, std::string val)> callback) { // code } }; Then there is a hitlist class which has a number of templated member functions which call table::scan_index(T, ...) class hitlist { public: template <typename T> void eq(uint fieldno, T value) { table* index_table = db.get_index_table(fieldno); // code index_table->scan_index<T>(value, [&](uint recno, T n)->bool { // code }); } }; And, finally, the code which kicks it all off: hitlist hl; // code hl.eq<std::string>(*fieldno, p1.to_string()); The problem is that instead of calling table::scan_index(std::string, ...), it calls the templated version. I have tried using both overloading (as shown above) and a specialized function template (below), but nothing seems to work. After staring at this code for a few hours, I feel like I'm missing something obvious. Any ideas? template <> void scan_index<std::string>(std::string val, std::function<bool (uint recno, std::string val)> callback) { // code }

    Read the article

  • Should this work?

    - by Noah Roberts
    I am trying to specialize a metafunction upon a type that has a function pointer as one of its parameters. The code compiles just fine but it will simply not match the type. #include <iostream> #include <boost/mpl/bool.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/identity.hpp> template < typename CONT, typename NAME, typename TYPE, TYPE (CONT::*getter)() const, void (CONT::*setter)(TYPE const&) > struct metafield_fun {}; struct test_field {}; struct test { int testing() const { return 5; } void testing(int const&) {} }; template < typename T > struct field_writable : boost::mpl::identity<T> {}; template < typename CONT, typename NAME, typename TYPE, TYPE (CONT::*getter)() const > struct field_writable< metafield_fun<CONT,NAME,TYPE,getter,0> > : boost::mpl::false_ {}; typedef metafield_fun<test, test_field, int, &test::testing, 0> unwritable; int main() { std::cout << typeid(field_writable<unwritable>::type).name() << std::endl; std::cin.get(); } Output is always the type passed in, never bool_.

    Read the article

  • Django template context not working with imported class

    - by Andy Hume
    I'm using Django's templating on appengine, and am having a problem whereby a class I'm importing from another package is not correctly being made available to the template context. Broadly speaking, this is the code. The prop1 is not available in the template in the first example below, but is in the second. MyClass is identical in both cases. This does not work: from module import MyClass context = MyClass() self.response.out.write(template.render(path, context)) This does: class MyClass(object): def __init__(self): self.prop1 = "prop1" context = MyClass() self.response.out.write(template.render(path, context)) If I log the context in the above code I get: <module.MyClass object at 0x107b1e450> when it's imported, and: <__main__.MyClass object at 0x103759390> when it's defined in the same file. Any clues as to what might cause this kind of behaviour?

    Read the article

  • Notepad++ premade template

    - by bah
    Hi, I have seen in videos, that people get html template by typing "html:5" or something like that (btw, they're not using notepad++). Is this possible in notepad++? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Typedef equivalence in function arguments

    - by Warren Seine
    Hi guys, The question is kind of hard to ask without an example so here it is: #include <vector> struct O { }; struct C { template <typename T> void function1(void (C::*callback)(const O*)); template <typename T> void function2(void (C::*callback)(const typename T::value_type)); void print(const O*); }; int main() { C c; c.function1< std::vector<O*> >(&C::print); // Success. c.function2< std::vector<O*> >(&C::print); // Fail. } The error that I am given is: error: no matching function for call to ‘C::function2(void (C::*)(const O*))’. Basically, the only difference between calls is that in function2, I'm more generic since I use the typedef std::vector<O*>::value_type which should resolve to O*, hence similar to function1. I'm using G++ 4.2.1 (I know it's old), but Comeau confirms I'm wrong. Why does the compilation fail?

    Read the article

  • Specify a base classes template parameters while instantiating a derived class?

    - by DaClown
    Hi, I have no idea if the title makes any sense but I can't find the right words to descibe my "problem" in one line. Anyway, here is my problem. There is an interface for a search: template <typename InputType, typename ResultType> class Search { public: virtual void search (InputType) = 0; virtual void getResult(ResultType&) = 0; }; and several derived classes like: template <typename InputType, typename ResultType> class XMLSearch : public Search<InputType, ResultType> { public: void search (InputType) { ... }; void getResult(ResultType&) { ... }; }; The derived classes shall be used in the source code later on. I would like to hold a simple pointer to a Search without specifying the template parameters, then assign a new XMLSearch and thereby define the template parameters of Search and XMLSearch Search *s = new XMLSearch<int, int>(); I found a way that works syntactically like what I'm trying to do, but it seems a bit odd to really use it: template <typename T> class Derived; class Base { public: template <typename T> bool GetValue(T &value) { Derived<T> *castedThis=dynamic_cast<Derived<T>* >(this); if(castedThis) return castedThis->GetValue(value); return false; } virtual void Dummy() {} }; template <typename T> class Derived : public Base { public: Derived<T>() { mValue=17; } bool GetValue(T &value) { value=mValue; return true; } T mValue; }; int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { Base *v=new Derived<int>; int i=0; if(!v->GetValue(i)) std::cout<<"Wrong type int."<<std::endl; float f=0.0; if(!v->GetValue(f)) std::cout<<"Wrong type float."<<std::endl; std::cout<<i<<std::endl<<f; char c; std::cin>>c; return 0; } Is there a better way to accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • C++: Constructor/destructor unresolved when not inline?

    - by Anamon
    In a plugin-based C++ project, I have a TmpClass that is used to exchange data between the main application and the plugins. Therefore the respective TmpClass.h is included in the abstract plugin interface class that is included by the main application project, and implemented by each plugin. As the plugins work on STL vectors of TmpClass instances, there needs to be a default constructor and destructor for the TmpClass. I had declared these in TmpClass.h: class TmpClass { TmpClass(); ~TmpClass(); } and implemented them in TmpClass.cpp. TmpClass::~TmpClass() {} TmpClass::TmpClass() {} However, when compiling plugins this leads to the linker complaining about two unresolved externals - the default constructor and destructor of TmpClass as required by the std::vector<TmpClass> template instantiation - even though all other functions I declare in TmpClass.h and implement in TmpClass.cpp work. As soon as I remove the (empty) default constructor and destructor from the .cpp file and inline them into the class declaration in the .h file, the plugins compile and work. Why is it that the default constructor and destructor have to be inline for this code to compile? Why does it even maatter? (I'm using MSVC++8).

    Read the article

  • In the generic programming/TMP world what exactly is a model / a policy and a "concept" ?

    - by Hassan Syed
    I'd like to know the precise yet succinct definitions of these three concepts in one place. The quality of the answer should depend on the following two points. Show a simple code snippet to show how and what the concept/technique is used for. Be simple enough to understand so that a programmer without any exposure to this area can grasp it. Note: There are probably many correct answers since each concept has many different facets. If there are a lot of good answers I will eventually turn the question into CW and aggregate the answers. -- Post Accept Edit -- Boost has a nice article on generic programming concepts

    Read the article

  • Specializing a template member function of a template class?

    - by uj2
    I have a template class that has a template member function that needs to be specialized, as in: template <typename T> class X { public: template <typename U> void Y() {} template <> void Y<int>() {} }; Altough VC handles this correctly, apperantly this isn't standard and GCC complains: explicit specialization in non-namespace scope 'class X<T>' I tried: template <typename T> class X { public: template <typename U> void Y() {} }; template <typename T> // Also tried `template<>` here void X<T>::Y<int>() {} But this causes both VC and GCC to complain. What's the right way to do this?

    Read the article

  • std::basic_string full specialization (g++ conflict)

    - by SoapBox
    I am trying to define a full specialization of std::basic_string< char, char_traits<char>, allocator<char> > which is typedef'd (in g++) by the <string> header. The problem is, if I include <string> first, g++ sees the typedef as an instantiation of basic_string and gives me errors. If I do my specialization first then I have no issues. I should be able to define my specialization after <string> is included. What do I have to do to be able to do that? My Code: #include <bits/localefwd.h> //#include <string> // <- uncommenting this line causes compilation to fail namespace std { template<> class basic_string< char, char_traits<char>, allocator<char> > { public: int blah() { return 42; } size_t size() { return 0; } const char *c_str() { return ""; } void reserve(int) {} void clear() {} }; } #include <string> #include <iostream> int main() { std::cout << std::string().blah() << std::endl; } The above code works fine. But, if I uncomment the first #include <string> line, I get the following compiler errors: blah.cpp:7: error: specialization of ‘std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >’ after instantiation blah.cpp:7: error: redefinition of ‘class std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >’ /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stringfwd.h:52: error: previous definition of ‘class std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >’ blah.cpp: In function ‘int main()’: blah.cpp:22: error: ‘class std::string’ has no member named ‘blah’ Line 52 of /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stringfwd.h: template<typename _CharT, typename _Traits = char_traits<_CharT>, typename _Alloc = allocator<_CharT> > class basic_string; As far as I know this is just a forward delcaration of the template, NOT an instantiation as g++ claims. Line 56 of /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stringfwd.h: typedef basic_string<char> string; As far as I know this is just a typedef, NOT an instantiation either. So why are these lines conflicting with my code? What can I do to fix this other than ensuring that my code is always included before <string>?

    Read the article

  • In Jeditable, how do I make it so that when I click the div to edit, the text box content has initial value that is processed?

    - by TIMEX
    When the user clicks on the div, jeditable will make a text box. However, I want the initial text to be done with function stripTags(), instead of what's on the page. The reason is that I'm using some URL techniques to turn plain text links into URLs. When the user clicks on the div, jeditable is turning them into <a href=>..</a> Is there a "beforeSubmit" option in jeditable? http://www.appelsiini.net/projects/jeditable

    Read the article

  • Is there a Visual Studio (or freeware) equivalent for Expression Blend's "Edit Template" feature?

    - by DanM
    In Expression Blend, you can view and edit the control template of objects in the "Objects and Timeline" panel. I'm wondering if there's an equivalent feature in Visual Studio or if there's something free (or very inexpensive) I can download that will allow me to do this. Here's a screen cap from Expression Blend that shows what I'm talking about: Doing this for DataGrid results in the following: <Style x:Key="DataGridStyle1" TargetType="{x:Type Custom:DataGrid}"> ... <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="{x:Type Custom:DataGrid}"> ... </ControlTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> <Style.Triggers> <Trigger Property="IsGrouping" Value="True"> <Setter Property="ScrollViewer.CanContentScroll" Value="False"/> </Trigger> </Style.Triggers> </Style> (The ... is of course replaced with setters and the contents of the control template.) This is a very useful starting point if you want to create a custom style and template for a control. It seems like you can do pretty much anything you can do in Blend in Studio, but this one is eluding me. Any ideas? Edit I'm also curious if this feature will be in Visual Studio 2010. Anyone know?

    Read the article

  • C++ template type deduction problem

    - by hamishmcn
    motivation: I would like to create a utility class so that instead of having to write: if( someVal == val1 || someVal == val2 || someVal == val3 ) I could instead write: if( is(someVal).in(val1, val2, val3) ) which is much closer to the mathematical 'a is an element of (b,c,d)' and also would save on a lot of typing when the variable name 'someVal' is long. Here is the code I have so far (for 2 and 3 values): template<class T> class is { private: T t_; public: is(T t) : t_(t) { } bool in(const T& v1, const T& v2) { return t_ == v1 || t_ == v2; } bool in(const T& v1, const T& v2, const T& v3) { return t_ == v1 || t_ == v2 || t_ == v3; } }; However it fails to compile if I write: is(1).in(3,4,5); instead I have to write is<int>(1).in(3,4,5); Which isn't too bad, but it would be better if somehow the compiler could figure out that the type is int with out me having to explicitly specify it. Is there anyway to do this or I am stuck with specifying it explicitly?

    Read the article

  • Why are there two implementations of std::sort (with and without a comparator) rather than one implementation with a default template parameter?

    - by PolyVox
    In my code I'm adopting a design strategy which is similar to some standard library algorithms in that the exact behavior can be customized by a function object. The simplest example is std::sort, where a function object can control how the comparison is made between objects. I notice that the Visual C++ provides two implementations of std::sort, which naturally involves code duplication. I would have imagined that it was instead possible to have only one implementation, and provide a default comparator (using operator< ) as a default template parameter. What is the rational behind two separate versions? Would my suggestion make the interface more complex in some way? Or result in confusing error messages when the object does not provide operator Thanks, David

    Read the article

  • Passing functor and function pointers interchangeably using a templated method in C++

    - by metroxylon
    I currently have a templated class, with a templated method. Works great with functors, but having trouble compiling for functions. Foo.h template <typename T> class Foo { public: // Constructor, destructor, etc... template <typename Func> void bar(T x, Func f); }; template <typename T> template <typename Func> Foo::bar(T x, Func f) { /* some code here */ } Main.cpp #include "Foo.h" template <typename T> class Functor { public: Functor() {} void operator()(T x) { /* ... */ } private: /* some attributes here */ }; void Function(T x) { /* ... */ } int main() { Foo<int> foo; foo.bar(2, Functor); // No problem foo.bar(2, Function); // <unresolved overloaded function type> return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Why can I derived from a templated/generic class based on that type in C# / C++

    - by stusmith
    Title probably doesn't make a lot of sense, so I'll start with some code: class Foo : public std::vector<Foo> { }; ... Foo f; f.push_back( Foo() ); Why is this allowed by the compiler? My brain is melting at this stage, so can anyone explain whether there are any reasons you would want to do this? Unfortunately I've just seen a similar pattern in some production C# code and wondered why anyone would use this pattern.

    Read the article

  • signature output operator overload

    - by coubeatczech
    hi, do you know, how to write signature of a function or method for operator<< for template class in C++? I want something like: template <class A class MyClass{ public: friend ostream & operator<<(ostream & os, MyClass<A mc); } ostream & operator<<(ostream & os, MyClass<A mc){ // some code return os; } But this just won't compile. Do anyone know, how to write it correctly?

    Read the article

  • template; Point<2, double>; Point<3, double>

    - by Oops
    Hi, I want to create my own Point struct it is only for purposes of learning C++. I have the following code: template <int dims, typename T> struct Point { T X[dims]; Point(){} Point( T X0, T X1 ) { X[0] = X0; X[1] = X1; } Point( T X0, T X1, T X2 ) { X[0] = X0; X[1] = X1; X[2] = X2; } Point<dims, int> toint() { //how to distinguish between 2D and 3D ??? Point<dims, int> ret = Point<dims, int>( (int)X[0], (int)X[1]); return ret; } std::string str(){ //how to distinguish between 2D and 3D ??? std::stringstream s; s << "{ X0: " << X[0] << " | X1: " << X[1] << " }"; return s.str(); } }; int main(void) { Point<2, double> p2d = Point<2, double>( 12.3, 45.6 ); Point<3, double> p3d = Point<3, double>( 12.3, 45.6, 78.9 ); Point<2, int> p2i = p2d.toint(); //OK Point<3, int> p3i = p3d.toint(); //m??? std::cout << p2d.str() << std::endl; //OK std::cout << p3d.str() << std::endl; //m??? std::cout << p2i.str() << std::endl; //m??? std::cout << p3i.str() << std::endl; //m??? char c; std::cin >> c; return 0; } of couse until now the output is not what I want. my questions is: how to take care of the dimensions of the Point (2D or 3D) in member functions of the Point? many thanks in advance Oops

    Read the article

  • Is call to function object inlined?

    - by dehmann
    In the following code, Foo::add calls a function via a function object: struct Plus { inline int operator()(int x, int y) const { return x + y; } }; template<class Fct> struct Foo { Fct fct; Foo(Fct f) : fct(f) {} inline int add(int x, int y) { return fct(x,y); // same efficiency adding directly? } }; Is this the same efficiency as calling x+y directly in Foo::add? In other words, does the compiler typically directly replace fct(x,y) with the actual call, inlining the code, when compiling with optimizations enabled?

    Read the article

  • C++ template overloading - wrong function called

    - by DeadMG
    template<typename T> T* Push(T* ptr); template<typename T> T* Push(T& ref); template<typename T, typename T1> T* Push(T1&& ref); I have int i = 0; Push<int>(i); But the compiler calls it ambiguous. How is that ambiguous? The second function is clearly the preferred match since it's more specialized. Especially since the T1&& won't bind to an lvalue unless I explicitly forward/move it. Sorry - i is an int. Otherwise, the question would make no sense, and I thought people would infer it since it's normally the loop iterator.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126  | Next Page >