Search Results

Search found 74 results on 3 pages for 'variadic'.

Page 2/3 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

  • Generic allocator class without variadic templates?

    - by rainer
    I am trying to write a generic allocator class that does not really release an object's memory when it is free()'d but holds it in a queue and returns a previously allocated object if a new one is requested. Now, what I can't wrap my head around is how to pass arguments to the object's constructor when using my allocator (at least without resorting to variadic templates, that is). The alloc() function i came up with looks like this: template <typename... T> inline T *alloc(const &T... args) { T *p; if (_free.empty()) { p = new T(args...); } else { p = _free.front(); _free.pop(); // to call the ctor of T, we need to first call its DTor p->~T(); p = new( p ) T(args...); } return p; } Still, I need the code to be compatible with today's C++ (and older versions of GCC that do not support variadic templates). Is there any other way to go about passing an arbitrary amount of arguments to the objects constructor?

    Read the article

  • Variadic templates in Scala

    - by Thomas Jung
    Suppose you want to have something like variadic templates (the ability to define n type parameters for a generic class) in Scala. For example you do not want to define Tuple2[+T1, +T2] and Tuple3[+T1, +T2, +T3] but Tuple[T*]. Are there other options than HLists?

    Read the article

  • Isses using function with variadic arguments

    - by Sausages
    I'm trying to write a logging function and have tried several different attempts at dealing with the variadic arguments, but am having problems with all of them. Here's the latest: - (void) log:(NSString *)format, ... { if (self.loggingEnabled) { va_list vl; va_start(vl, format); NSString* str = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:format arguments:vl]; va_end(vl); NSLog(format); } } If I call this like this: [self log:@"I like: %@", @"sausages"]; Then I get an EXC_BAD_ACCESS at the NSLog line (there's also a compiler warning that the format string is not a string literal). However if in XCode's console I do "po str" it displays "I like: sausages" so str seems ok.

    Read the article

  • C++0x class factory with variadic templates problem

    - by randomenglishbloke
    I have a class factory where I'm using variadic templates for the c'tor parameters (code below). However, when I attempt to use it, I get compile errors; when I originally wrote it without parameters, it worked fine. Here is the class: template< class Base, typename KeyType, class... Args > class GenericFactory { public: GenericFactory(const GenericFactory&) = delete; GenericFactory &operator=(const GenericFactory&) = delete; typedef Base* (*FactFunType)(Args...); template <class Derived> static void Register(const KeyType &key, FactFunType fn) { FnList[key] = fn; } static Base* Create(const KeyType &key, Args... args) { auto iter = FnList.find(key); if (iter == FnList.end()) return 0; else return (iter->second)(args...); } static GenericFactory &Instance() { static GenericFactory gf; return gf; } private: GenericFactory() = default; typedef std::unordered_map<KeyType, FactFunType> FnMap; static FnMap FnList; }; template <class B, class D, typename KeyType, class... Args> class RegisterClass { public: RegisterClass(const KeyType &key) { GenericFactory<B, KeyType, Args...>::Instance().Register(key, FactFn); } static B *FactFn(Args... args) { return new D(args...); } }; Here is the error: when calling (e.g.) // Tucked out of the way RegisterClass<DataMap, PDColumnMap, int, void *> RC_CT_PD(0); GCC 4.5.0 gives me: In constructor 'RegisterClass<B, D, KeyType, Args>::RegisterClass(const KeyType&) [with B = DataMap, D = PDColumnMap, KeyType = int, Args = {void*}]': no matching function for call to 'GenericFactory<DataMap, int, void*>::Register(const int&, DataMap* (&)(void*))' I can't see why it won't compile and after extensive googling I couldn't find the answer. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong (aside from the strange variable name, which makes sense in context)?

    Read the article

  • GCC ICE -- alternative function syntax, variadic templates and tuples

    - by Marc H.
    (Related to C++0x, How do I expand a tuple into variadic template function arguments?.) The following code (see below) is taken from this discussion. The objective is to apply a function to a tuple. I simplified the template parameters and modified the code to allow for a return value of generic type. While the original code compiles fine, when I try to compile the modified code with GCC 4.4.3, g++ -std=c++0x main.cc -o main GCC reports an internal compiler error (ICE) with the following message: main.cc: In function ‘int main()’: main.cc:53: internal compiler error: in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:10077 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.4/README.Bugs> for instructions. Question: Is the code correct? or is the ICE triggered by illegal code? // file: main.cc #include <tuple> // Recursive case template<unsigned int N> struct Apply_aux { template<typename F, typename T, typename... X> static auto apply(F f, const T& t, X... x) -> decltype(Apply_aux<N-1>::apply(f, t, std::get<N-1>(t), x...)) { return Apply_aux<N-1>::apply(f, t, std::get<N-1>(t), x...); } }; // Terminal case template<> struct Apply_aux<0> { template<typename F, typename T, typename... X> static auto apply(F f, const T&, X... x) -> decltype(f(x...)) { return f(x...); } }; // Actual apply function template<typename F, typename T> auto apply(F f, const T& t) -> decltype(Apply_aux<std::tuple_size<T>::value>::apply(f, t)) { return Apply_aux<std::tuple_size<T>::value>::apply(f, t); } // Testing #include <string> #include <iostream> int f(int p1, double p2, std::string p3) { std::cout << "int=" << p1 << ", double=" << p2 << ", string=" << p3 << std::endl; return 1; } int g(int p1, std::string p2) { std::cout << "int=" << p1 << ", string=" << p2 << std::endl; return 2; } int main() { std::tuple<int, double, char const*> tup(1, 2.0, "xxx"); std::cout << apply(f, tup) << std::endl; std::cout << apply(g, std::make_tuple(4, "yyy")) << std::endl; } Remark: If I hardcode the return type in the recursive case (see code), then everything is fine. That is, substituting this snippet for the recursive case does not trigger the ICE: // Recursive case (hardcoded return type) template<unsigned int N> struct Apply_aux { template<typename F, typename T, typename... X> static int apply(F f, const T& t, X... x) { return Apply_aux<N-1>::apply(f, t, std::get<N-1>(t), x...); } }; Alas, this is an incomplete solution to the original problem.

    Read the article

  • How to create a variadic (with variable length argument list) function wrapper in JavaScript

    - by U-D13
    The intention is to build a wrapper to provide a consistent method of calling native functions with variable arity on various script hosts - so that the script could be executed in a browser as well as in the Windows Script Host or other script engines. I am aware of 3 methods of which each one has its own drawbacks. eval() method: function wrapper () { var str = ''; for (var i=0; i<arguments.lenght; i++) str += (str ?', ':'') + ',arguments['+i+']'; return eval('[native_function] ('+str+')'); } switch() method: function wrapper () { switch (arguments.lenght) { case 0: return [native_function] (arguments[0]); break; case 1: return [native_function] (arguments[0], arguments[1]); break; ... case n: return [native_function] (arguments[0], arguments[1], ... arguments[n]); } } apply() method: function wrapper () { return [native_function].apply([native_function_namespace], arguments); } What's wrong with them you ask? Well, shall we delve into all the reasons why eval() is evil? And also all the string concatenation... Not a solution to be labeled "elegant". One can never know the maximum n and thus how many cases to prepare. This also would strech the script to immense proportions and sin against the holy DRY principle. The script could get executed on older (pre- JavaScript 1.3 / ECMA-262-3) engines that don't support the apply() method. Now the question part: is there any another solution out there?

    Read the article

  • Java variadic function parameters

    - by Amir Rachum
    Hi, I have a function that accepts a variable number of parameters: foo (Class... types); In which I get a certain number of class types. Next, I want to have a function bar( ?? ) That will accepts a variable number of parameters as well, and be able to verify that the variables are the same number (that's easy) and of the same types (the hard part) as was specified in foo. How can I do that? Edit: to clarify, a call could be: foo (String.class, Int.class); bar ("aaa", 32); // OK! bar (3); // ERROR! bar ("aa" , "bb"); //ERROR! Also, foo and bar are methods of the same class.

    Read the article

  • Go — variadic parameter functions weirdness

    - by ivanzoid
    I'm trying to write simple fmt.Printf wrapper which takes variable number of arguments, here is the code: func Die(format string, args ...interface{}) { str := fmt.Sprintf(format, args) fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "%v\n", str) os.Exit(1) } But when I'm calling it: Die("foo") I get: foo%!(EXTRA []interface {}=[]) Can't figure why I'm getting this text after the "foo" & what is the correct way to create wrappers around fmt.Fprintf?

    Read the article

  • Variadic functions and arguments assignment in C/C++

    - by Rizo
    I was wondering if in C/C++ language it is possible to pass arguments to function in key-value form. For example in python you can do: def some_function(arg0 = "default_value", arg1): # (...) value1 = "passed_value" some_function(arg1 = value1) So the alternative code in C could look like this: void some_function(char *arg0 = "default_value", char *arg1) { ; } int main() { char *value1 = "passed_value"; some_function(arg1 = value1); return(0); } So the arguments to use in some_function would be: arg0 = "default_value" arg1 = "passed_value" Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Problems with variadic function

    - by morpheous
    I have the following function from some legacy code that I am maintaining. long getMaxStart(long start, long count, const myStruct *s1, ...) { long i1, maxstart; myStruct *s2; va_list marker; maxstart = start; /*BUGFIX: 003 */ /*(va_start(marker, count);*/ va_start(marker, s1); for (i1 = 1; i1 <= count; i1++) { s2 = va_arg(marker, myStruct *); /* <- s2 is assigned null here */ maxstart = MAX(maxstart, s2->firstvalid); /* <- SEGV here */ } va_end(marker); return (maxstart); } When the function is called with only one myStruct argument, it causes a SEGV. The code compiled and run without crashing on Windows XP when I compiled it using VS2005. I have now moved the code to Ubuntu Karmic and I am having problems with the stricter compiler on Linux. Is anyone able to spot what is causing the parameter not to be read correctly in the var_arg() statement? I am compiling using gcc version 4.4.1 Edit The statement that causes the SEGV is this one: start = getMaxStart(start, 1, ms1); The variables 'start' and 'ms1' have valid values when the code execution first reaches this line.

    Read the article

  • Problems with variadic function (C)

    - by morpheous
    I have the following function from some legacy code that I am maintaining. long getMaxStart(long start, long count, const myStruct *s1, ...) { long i1, maxstart; myStruct *s2; va_list marker; maxstart = start; /*BUGFIX: 003 */ /*(va_start(marker, count);*/ va_start(marker, s1); for (i1 = 1; i1 <= count; i1++) { s2 = va_arg(marker, myStruct *); /* <- s2 is assigned null here */ maxstart = MAX(maxstart, s2->firstvalid); /* <- SEGV here */ } va_end(marker); return (maxstart); } When the function is called with only one myStruct argument, it causes a SEGV. The code compiled and run without crashing on an XP, when I compiled it using VS2005. I have now moved the code to Ubuntu Karmic and I am having problems with the stricter compiler on Linux. Is anyone able to spot what is causing the parameter not to be read correctly in the var_arg() statement? I am compiling using gcc version 4.4.1

    Read the article

  • Problems with variadic macros in C

    - by imikedaman
    Hi, I'm having a problem with optional arguments in #define statements in C, or more specifically with gcc 4.2: bool func1(bool tmp) { return false; } void func2(bool tmp, bool tmp2) {} #define CALL(func, tmp, ...) func(tmp, ##__VA_ARGS__) int main() { // this compiles CALL(func2, CALL(func1, false), false); // this fails with: Implicit declaration of function 'CALL' CALL(func2, false, CALL(func1, false)); } That's obviously a contrived example, but does show the problem. Does anyone know how I can get the optional arguments to "resolve" correctly? Additional information: If I remove the ## before _VA_ARGS_, and do something like this: bool func2(bool tmp, bool tmp2) { return false; } #define CALL(func, tmp, ...) func(tmp, __VA_ARGS__) int main() { CALL(func2, false, CALL(func2, false, false)); } That compiles, but it no longer works with zero arguments since it would resolve to func(tmp, )

    Read the article

  • va_arg with pointers

    - by Yktula
    I want to initialize a linked list with pointer arguments like so: /* * Initialize a linked list using variadic arguments * Returns the number of structures initialized */ int init_structures(struct structure *first, ...) { struct structure *s; unsigned int count = 0; va_list va; va_start(va, first); for (s = first; s != NULL; s = va_arg(va, (struct structure *))) { if ((s = malloc(sizeof(struct structure))) == NULL) { perror("malloc"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } count++; } va_end(va); return count; } The problem is that clang errors type name requires a specifier or qualifier at va_arg(va, (struct structure *)), and says that the type specifier defaults to int. It also notes instantiated form at (struct structure *) and struct structure *. This, what seems to be getting assigned to s is int (struct structure *). It compiles fine when parentheses are removed from (struct structure *), but the structures that are supposed to be initialized are inaccessible. Why is int assumed when parentheses are around the type argument passed to va_arg? How can I fix this?

    Read the article

  • Calling cdecl Functions That Have Different Number of Arguments

    - by KlaxSmashing
    I have functions that I wish to call based on some input. Each function has different number of arguments. In other words, if (strcmp(str, "funcA") == 0) funcA(a, b, c); else if (strcmp(str, "funcB") == 0) funcB(d); else if (strcmp(str, "funcC") == 0) funcC(f, g); This is a bit bulky and hard to maintain. Ideally, these are variadic functions (e.g., printf-style) and can use varargs. But they are not. So exploiting the cdecl calling convention, I am stuffing the stack via a struct full of parameters. I'm wondering if there's a better way to do it. Note that this is strictly for in-house (e.g., simple tools, unit tests, etc.) and will not be used for any production code that might be subjected to malicious attacks. Example: #include <stdio.h> typedef struct __params { unsigned char* a; unsigned char* b; unsigned char* c; } params; int funcA(int a, int b) { printf("a = %d, b = %d\n", a, b); return a; } int funcB(int a, int b, const char* c) { printf("a = %d, b = %d, c = %s\n", a, b, c); return b; } int funcC(int* a) { printf("a = %d\n", *a); *a *= 2; return 0; } typedef int (*f)(params); int main(int argc, char**argv) { int val; int tmp; params myParams; f myFuncA = (f)funcA; f myFuncB = (f)funcB; f myFuncC = (f)funcC; myParams.a = (unsigned char*)100; myParams.b = (unsigned char*)200; val = myFuncA(myParams); printf("val = %d\n", val); myParams.c = (unsigned char*)"This is a test"; val = myFuncB(myParams); printf("val = %d\n", val); tmp = 300; myParams.a = (unsigned char*)&tmp; val = myFuncC(myParams); printf("a = %d, val = %d\n", tmp, val); return 0; } Output: gcc -o func func.c ./func a = 100, b = 200 val = 100 a = 100, b = 200, c = This is a test val = 200 a = 300 a = 600, val = 0

    Read the article

  • Fill container with template parameters

    - by phlipsy
    I want to fill the template parameters passed to a variadic template into an array with fixed length. For that purpose I wrote the following helper function templates template<typename ForwardIterator, typename T> void fill(ForwardIterator i) { } template<typename ForwardIterator, typename T, T head, T... tail> void fill(ForwardIterator i) { *i = head; fill<ForwardIterator, T, tail...>(++i); } the following class template template<typename T, T... args> struct params_to_array; template<typename T, T last> struct params_to_array<T, last> { static const std::size_t SIZE = 1; typedef std::array<T, SIZE> array_type; static const array_type params; private: void init_params() { array_type result; fill<typename array_type::iterator, T, head, tail...>(result.begin()); return result; } }; template<typename T, T head, T... tail> struct params_to_array<T, head, tail...> { static const std::size_t SIZE = params_to_array<T, tail...>::SIZE + 1; typedef std::array<T, SIZE> array_type; static const array_type params; private: void init_params() { array_type result; fill<typename array_type::iterator, T, last>(result.begin()); return result; } }; and initialized the static constants via template<typename T, T last> const typename param_to_array<T, last>::array_type param_to_array<T, last>::params = param_to_array<T, last>::init_params(); and template<typename T, T head, T... tail> const typename param_to_array<T, head, tail...>::array_type param_to_array<T, head, tail...>::params = param_to_array<T, head, tail...>::init_params(); Now the array param_to_array<int, 1, 3, 4>::params is a std::array<int, 3> and contains the values 1, 3 and 4. I think there must be a simpler way to achieve this behavior. Any suggestions? Edit: As Noah Roberts suggested in his answer I modified my program like the following: I wrote a new struct counting the elements in a parameter list: template<typename T, T... args> struct count; template<typename T, T head, T... tail> struct count<T, head, tail...> { static const std::size_t value = count<T, tail...>::value + 1; }; template<typename T, T last> stuct count<T, last> { static const std::size_t value = 1; }; and wrote the following function template<typename T, T... args> std::array<T, count<T, args...>::value> params_to_array() { std::array<T, count<T, args...>::value> result; fill<typename std::array<T, count<T, args...>::value>::iterator, T, args...>(result.begin()); return result; } Now I get with params_to_array<int, 10, 20, 30>() a std::array<int, 3> with the content 10, 20 and 30. Any further suggestions?

    Read the article

  • GCC error with variadic templates: "Sorry, unimplemented: cannot expand 'Identifier...' into a fixe

    - by Dennis
    While doing variadic template programming in C++0x on GCC, once in a while I get an error that says "Sorry, unimplemented: cannot expand 'Identifier...' into a fixed-length arugment list." If I remove the "..." in the code then I get a different error: "error: parameter packs not expanded with '...'". So if I have the "..." in, GCC calls that an error, and if I take the "..." out, GCC calls that an error too. The only way I have been able to deal with this is to completely rewrite the template metaprogram from scratch using a different approach, and (with luck) I eventually come up with code that doesn't cause the error. But I would really like to know what I was doing wrong. Despite Googling for it and despite much experimentation, I can't pin down what it is that I'm doing differently between variadic template code that does produce this error, and code that does not have the error. The wording of the error message seems to imply that the code should work according the C++0x standard, but that GCC doesn't support it yet. Or perhaps it is a compiler bug? Here's some code that produces the error. Note: I don't need you to write a correct implementation for me, but rather just to point out what is about my code that is causing this specific error // Used as a container for a set of types. template <typename... Types> struct TypePack { // Given a TypePack<T1, T2, T3> and T=T4, returns TypePack<T1, T2, T3, T4> template <typename T> struct Add { typedef TypePack<Types..., T> type; }; }; // Takes the set (First, Others...) and, while N > 0, adds (First) to TPack. // TPack is a TypePack containing between 0 and N-1 types. template <int N, typename TPack, typename First, typename... Others> struct TypePackFirstN { // sorry, unimplemented: cannot expand ‘Others ...’ into a fixed-length argument list typedef typename TypePackFirstN<N-1, typename TPack::template Add<First>::type, Others...>::type type; }; // The stop condition for TypePackFirstN: when N is 0, return the TypePack that has been built up. template <typename TPack, typename... Others> struct TypePackFirstN<0, TPack, Others...> //sorry, unimplemented: cannot expand ‘Others ...’ into a fixed-length argument list { typedef TPack type; }; EDIT: I've noticed that while a partial template instantiation that looks like does incur the error: template <typename... T> struct SomeStruct<1, 2, 3, T...> {}; Rewriting it as this does not produce an error: template <typename... T> struct SomeStruct<1, 2, 3, TypePack<T...>> {}; It seems that you can declare parameters to partial specializations to be variadic; i.e. this line is OK: template <typename... T> But you cannot actually use those parameter packs in the specialization, i.e. this part is not OK: SomeStruct<1, 2, 3, T... The fact that you can make it work if you wrap the pack in some other type, i.e. like this: SomeStruct<1, 2, 3, TypePack<T...>> to me implies that the declaration of the variadic parameter to a partial template specialization was successful, and you just can't use it directly. Can anyone confirm this?

    Read the article

  • sscanf wrapping function to advance string pointer in C

    - by Dusty
    I have a function that makes a series of calls to sscanf() and then, after each, updates the string pointer to point to the first character not consumed by sscanf() like so: if(sscanf(str, "%d%n", &fooInt, &length) != 1) { // error handling } str+=length; In order to clean it up and avoid duplicating this several times over, i'd like to encapsulate this into a nice utility function that looks something like the following: int newSscanf ( char ** str, const char * format, ...) { int rv; int length; char buf[MAX_LENGTH]; va_list args; strcpy(buf, format); strcat(buf, "%n"); va_start(args, format); rv = vsscanf(*str, buf, args, &length); va_end(args); *str += length; return rv; } Then I could simply the calls as below to remove the additional parameter/bookkeeping: if(newSscanf(&str, "%d", &fooInt) != 1) { // error handling } Unfortunately, I can't find a way to append the &length parameter onto the end of the arg list directly or otherwise inside newSscanf(). Is there some way to work around this, or am I just as well off handling the bookkeeping by hand at each call?

    Read the article

  • Ellipsis notation in C#?

    - by Joshua
    Where can I get info about implementing my own methods that have the ellipsis notation, e.g. static void my_printf(char* format, ...) { } Also is that called ellipsis notation or is there a fancier name?

    Read the article

  • PHP: variable-length argument list by reference?

    - by GetFree
    Is it possible to create a PHP function that takes a variable number of parameters all of them by reference? It doesn't help me a function that receives by reference an array of values nor a function that takes its arguments wrapped in an object because I'm working on function composition and argument binding. Don't think about call-time pass-by-reference either. That thing shouldn't even exist.

    Read the article

  • Problem with variable argument function in C++

    - by Freezerburn
    I'm trying to create a variable length function (obviously, heh) in C++, and what I have right now works, but only for the first argument. If someone could please let me know how to get this working with all the arguments that are passed, I would really appreciate it. Code: void udStaticObject::accept( udObjectVisitor *visitor, ... ) { va_list marker; udObjectVisitor *i = visitor; va_start( marker, visitor ); while( 1 ) { i->visit_staticObject( this ); //the if here will always go to the break immediately, allowing only //one argument to be used if( ( i = va_arg( marker, udObjectVisitor* ) ) ) break; } va_end( marker ); } Based on my past posts, and any help posts I make in general, there is probably some information that I did not provide that you will need to know to help. I apologize in advance if I forgot anything, and please let me know what you need to know so I can provide the information.

    Read the article

  • Parameter pack argument consumption

    - by yuri kilochek
    It is possible to get the first element of the parameter pack like this template <typename... Elements> struct type_list { }; template <typename TypeList> struct type_list_first_element { }; template <typename FirstElement, typename... OtherElements> struct type_list_first_element<type_list<FirstElement, OtherElements...>> { typedef FirstElement type; }; int main() { typedef type_list<int, float, char> list; typedef type_list_first_element<list>::type element; return 0; } but not possible to similary get the last element like this template <typename... Elements> struct type_list { }; template <typename TypeList> struct type_list_last_element { }; template <typename LastElement, typename... OtherElements> struct type_list_last_element<type_list<OtherElements..., LastElement>> { typedef LastElement type; }; int main() { typedef type_list<int, float, char> list; typedef type_list_last_element<list>::type element; return 0; } with gcc 4.7.1 complaining: error: 'type' in 'struct type_list_last_element<type_list<int, float, char>>' does not name a type What paragraps from the standard describe this behaviour? It seems to me that template parameter packs are greedy in a sense that they consume all matching arguments, which in this case means that OtherElements consumes all three arguments (int, float and char) and then there is nothing left for LastElement so the compilation fails. Am i correct in the assumption? EDIT: To clarify: I am not asking how to extract the last element from the parameter pack, i know how to do that. What i actually want is to pick the pack apart from the back as opposed to the front, and as such recursing all the way to the back for each element would be ineffective. Apparentely reversing the sequence beforehand is the most sensible choice.

    Read the article

  • Parameter pack aware std::is_base_of()

    - by T. Carter
    Is there a possibility to have a static assertion whether a type provided as template argument implements all of the types listed in the parameter pack ie. a parameter pack aware std::is_base_of()? template <typename Type, typename... Requirements> class CommonBase { static_assert(is_base_of<Requirements..., Type>::value, "Invalid."); ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ parameter pack aware version of std::is_base_of() public: template <typename T> T* as() { static_assert(std::is_base_of<Requirements..., T>::value, "Invalid."); return reinterpret_cast<T*>(this); } };

    Read the article

  • C++0x, How do I expand a tuple into variadic template function arguments?

    - by Gustaf
    Consider the case of a templated function with variadic template arguments: template<typename Tret, typename... T> Tret func(const T&... t); Now, I have a tuple t of values. How do I call func() using the tuple values as arguments? I've read about the bind() function object, with call() function, and also the apply() function in different some now-obsolete documents. The GNU GCC 4.4 implementation seems to have a call() function in the bind() class, but there is very little documentation on the subject. Some people suggest hand-written recursive hacks, but the true value of variadic template arguments is to be able to use them in cases like above. Does anyone have a solution to is, or hint on where to read about it?

    Read the article

  • How would one call std::forward on all arguments in a variadic function?

    - by Noah Roberts
    I was just writing a generic object factory and using the boost preprocessor meta-library to make a variadic template (using 2010 and it doesn't support them). My function uses rval references and std::forward to do perfect forwarding and it got me thinking...when C++0X comes out and I had a standard compiler I would do this with real variadic templates. How though, would I call std::forward on the arguments? template < typename ... Params void f(Params ... params) // how do I say these are rvalue reference? { y(std::forward(...params)); //? - I doubt this would work. } Only way I can think of would require manual unpacking of ...params and I'm not quite there yet either. Is there a quicker syntax that would work?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >