Search Results

Search found 3595 results on 144 pages for 'templates deduction'.

Page 38/144 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • C# generics when T could be an array

    - by bufferz
    I am writing a C# wrapper for a 3rd party library that reads both single values and arrays from a hardware device, but always returns an object[] array even for one value. This requires repeated calls to object[0] when I'd like the end user to be able to use generics to receive either an array or single value. I want to use generics so the callee can use the wrapper in the following ways: MyWrapper<float> mw = new MyWrapper<float>( ... ); float value = mw.Value; //should return float; MyWrapper<float[]> mw = new MyWrapper<float[]>( ... ); float[] values = mw.Value; //should return float[]; In MyWrapper I have the Value property currently as the following: public T Value { get { if(_wrappedObject.Values.Length > 1) return (T)_wrappedObject.Value; //T could be float[]. this doesn't compile. else return (T)_wrappedObject.Values[0]; //T could be float. this compiles. } } I get a compile error in the first case: Cannot convert type 'object[]' to 'T' If I change MyWrapper.Value to T[] I receive: Cannot convert type 'object[]' to 'T[]' Any ideas of how to achieve my goal? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • std::conditional compile-time branch evaluation

    - by cmannett85
    Compiling this: template < class T, class Y, class ...Args > struct isSame { static constexpr bool value = std::conditional< sizeof...( Args ), typename std::conditional< std::is_same< T, Y >::value, isSame< Y, Args... >, // Error! std::false_type >::type, std::is_same< T, Y > >::type::value; }; int main() { qDebug() << isSame< double, int >::value; return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Gives me this compiler error: error: wrong number of template arguments (1, should be 2 or more) The issue is that isSame< double, int > has an empty Args parameter pack, so isSame< Y, Args... > effectively becomes isSame< Y > which does not match the signature. But my question is: Why is that branch being evaluated at all? sizeof...( Args ) is false, so the inner std:conditional should not be evaluated. This isn't a runtime piece of code, the compiler knows that sizeof..( Args ) will never be true with the given template types. If you're curious, it's supposed to be a variadic version of std::is_same, not that it works...

    Read the article

  • Partial template specialization for more than one typename

    - by Matt Joiner
    In the following code, I want to consider functions (Ops) that have void return to instead be considered to return true. The type Retval, and the return value of Op are always matching. I'm not able to discriminate using the type traits shown here, and attempts to create a partial template specialization based on Retval have failed due the presence of the other template variables, Op and Args. How do I specialize only some variables in a template specialization without getting errors? Is there any other way to alter behaviour based on the return type of Op? template <typename Retval, typename Op, typename... Args> Retval single_op_wrapper( Retval const failval, char const *const opname, Op const op, Cpfs &cpfs, Args... args) { try { CallContext callctx(cpfs, opname); Retval retval; if (std::is_same<bool, Retval>::value) { (callctx.*op)(args...); retval = true; } else { retval = (callctx.*op)(args...); } assert(retval != failval); callctx.commit(cpfs); return retval; } catch (CpfsError const &exc) { cpfs_errno_set(exc.fserrno); LOGF(Info, "Failed with %s", cpfs_errno_str(exc.fserrno)); } return failval; }

    Read the article

  • Passing a template func. as a func. ptr to an overloaded func. - is there a way to compile this code

    - by LoudNPossiblyRight
    Just a general c++ curiosity: This code below shouldn't compile because it's impossible to know which to instantiate: temp(const int&) or temp(const string&) when calling func(temp) - this part i know. What i would like to know is if there is anything i can do to the line marked PASSINGLINE to get the compiler to deduce that i want FPTR1 called and not FPTR2 ? #include<iostream> using std::cout; using std::endl; /*FPTR1*/ void func(void(*fptr)(const int&)){ fptr(1001001);} /*FPTR2*/ void func(void(*fptr)(const string&)){ fptr("1001001"); } template <typename T> void temp(const T &t){ cout << t << endl; } int main(){ /*PASSINGLINE*/ func(temp); return 0; } Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Django: Is there any way to have "unique for date range"?

    - by tomwolber
    If my model for Items is: class Item(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=500) startDate = models.DateField("Start Date", unique="true") endDate = models.DateField("End Date") Each Item needs to have a unique date range. for example, if i create an Item that has a date range of June 1st to June 8th, how can I keep and Item with a date range of June 3rd to June 5th from being created (or render an error with template logic)?

    Read the article

  • C++ STL type_traits question.

    - by Kim Sun-wu
    I was watching the latest C9 lecture and noticed something interesting.. In his introduction to type_traits, Stephan uses the following (as he says, contrived) example: template <typename T> void foo(T t, true_type) { std::cout << t << " is integral"; } template <typename T> void foo(T t, false_type) { std::cout << t << " is not integral"; } template <typename T> void bar(T t) { foo(t, typename is_integral<T>::type()); } This seems to be far more complicated than: template <typename T> void foo(T t) { if(std::is_integral<T>::value) std::cout << "integral"; else std::cout << "not integral"; } Is there something wrong with the latter way of doing it? Is his way better? Why? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Where are the function address literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). <UPDATE> After some reading with help from answer by Chris Dodd, what I'm looking for is literal function addresses as template parameters. Chris' answer indicates how to do this for standard functions, but how can the addresses of member functions be used as template parameters? Since the standard prohibits non-static member function addresses as template parameters (c++03 14.3.2.3), I suspect the work around is quite complicated. Any ideas for a workaround? Below the original form of the question is left as is for context. </UPDATE> The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one. Edit The intent of this question is not to implement delegates, rather to identify a pattern that will embed a conventional function call, (in immediate mode) directly into third party code, possibly a template.

    Read the article

  • Lua template processor question

    - by PeterMmm
    I'm going to use that template engine LTP . There is not so much doc available. Now i'm stuck how to pass an environment into the render engine. I have basically this: local ltp = require("ltp.template") ltp.render(io.stdout, 1, "index.dhtm", false, {}, "<?lua", "?>", { total="2400" }) What data structure should be the last parameter (env_code), a string, a table with key=val ?

    Read the article

  • Where are the function literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one.

    Read the article

  • Accept templated parameter of stl_container_type<string>::iterator

    - by Rodion Ingles
    I have a function where I have a container which holds strings (eg vector<string>, set<string>, list<string>) and, given a start iterator and an end iterator, go through the iterator range processing the strings. Currently the function is declared like this: template< typename ContainerIter> void ProcessStrings(ContainerIter begin, ContainerIter end); Now this will accept any type which conforms to the implicit interface of implementing operator*, prefix operator++ and whatever other calls are in the function body. What I really want to do is have a definition like the one below which explicitly restricts the amount of input (pseudocode warning): template< typename Container<string>::iterator> void ProcessStrings(Container<string>::iterator begin, Container<string>::iterator end); so that I can use it as such: vector<string> str_vec; list<string> str_list; set<SomeOtherClass> so_set; ProcessStrings(str_vec.begin(), str_vec.end()); // OK ProcessStrings(str_list.begin(), str_list.end()); //OK ProcessStrings(so_set.begin(), so_set.end()); // Error Essentially, what I am trying to do is restrict the function specification to make it obvious to a user of the function what it accepts and if the code fails to compile they get a message that they are using the wrong parameter types rather than something in the function body that XXX function could not be found for XXX class.

    Read the article

  • C++ meta-splat function

    - by aaa
    hello. Is there an existing function (in boost mpl or fusion) to splat meta-vector to variadic template arguments? for example: splat<vector<T1, T2, ...>, function>::type same as function<T1, T2, ...> my search have not found one, and I do not want to reinvent one if it already exists. edit: after some tinkering, apparently it's next to impossible to accomplish this in general way, as it would require declaring full template template parameter list for all possible cases. only reasonable solution is to use macro: #define splat(name, function) \ template<class T, ...> struct name; \ template<class T> \ struct name<T,typename boost::enable_if_c< \ result_of::size<T>::value == 1>::type> { \ typedef function< \ typename result_of::value_at_c<T,0>::type \ > type; \ }; Oh well. thank you

    Read the article

  • Do I need multiple template specializations if I want to specialize for several kinds of strings?

    - by romkyns
    For example: template<typename T> void write(T value) { mystream << value; } template<> void write<const char*>(const char* value) { write_escaped(mystream, value); } template<> void write<char*>(char* value) { write_escaped(mystream, value); } template<> void write<std::string>(std::string value) { write_escaped(mystream.c_str(), value); } This looks like I'm doing it wrong, especially the two variants for const and non-const char*. However I checked that if I only specialize for const char * then passing a char * variable will invoke the non-specialized version, when called like this in VC++10: char something[25]; strcpy(something, "blah"); write(something); What would be the proper way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Django 1.1 template question

    - by Bovril
    Hi All, I'm a little stuck trying to get my head around a django template. I have 2 objects, a cluster and a node I would like a simple page that lists... [Cluster 1] [associated node 1] [associated node 2] [associated node 3] [Cluster 2] [associated node 4] [associated node 5] [associated node 6] I've been using Django for about 2 days so if i've missed the point, please be gentle :) Models - class Node(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=30) description = models.TextField() cluster = models.ForeignKey(Cluster) def __unicode__(self): return self.name class Cluster(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=30) description = models.TextField() def __unicode__(self): return self.name Views - def DSAList(request): clusterlist = Cluster.objects.all() nodelist = Node.objects.all() t = loader.get_template('dsalist.html') v = Context({ 'CLUSTERLIST' : clusterlist, 'NODELIST' : nodelist, }) return HttpResponse(t.render(v)) Template - <body> <TABLE> {% for cluster in CLUSTERLIST %} <tr> <TD>{{ cluster.name }}</TD> {% for node in NODELIST %} {% if node.cluster.id == cluster.id %} <tr> <TD>{{ node.name }}</TD> </tr> {% endif %} {% endfor %} </tr> {% endfor %} </TABLE> </body> Any ideas ?

    Read the article

  • "Ambiguous template specialization" problem

    - by Setien
    I'm currently porting a heap of code that has previously only been compiled with Visual Studio 2008. In this code, there's an arrangement like this: template <typename T> T convert( const char * s ) { // slow catch-all std::istringstream is( s ); T ret; is >> ret; return ret; } template <> inline int convert<int>( const char * s ) { return (int)atoi( s ); } Generally, there are a lot of specializations of the templated function with different return types that are invoked like this: int i = convert<int>( szInt ); The problem is, that these template specializations result in "Ambiguous template specialization". If it was something besides the return type that differentiated these function specializations, I could obviously just use overloads, but that's not an option. How do I solve this without having to change all the places the convert functions are called?

    Read the article

  • c++ class member functions instatiated by traits

    - by Jive Dadson
    I am reluctant to say I can't figure this out, but I can't figure this out. I've googled and searched stackoverflow, and come up empty. The abstract, and possibly overly vague form of the question is, how can I use the traits-pattern to instantiate non-virtual member functions? The question came up while modernizing a set of multivariate function optimizers that I wrote more than 10 years ago. The optimizers all operate by selecting a straight-line path through the parameter space away from the current best point (the "update"), then finding a better point on that line (the "line search"), then testing for the "done" condition, and if not done, iterating. There are different methods for doing the update, the line-search, and conceivably for the done test, and other things. Mix and match. Different update formulae require different state-variable data. For example, the LMQN update requires a vector, and the BFGS update requires a matrix. If evaluating gradients is cheap, the line-search should do so. If not, it should use function evaluations only. Some methods require more accurate line-searches than others. Those are just some examples. The original version instantiates several of the combinations by means of virtual functions. Some traits are selected by setting mode bits that are tested at runtime. Yuck. It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago. It bugs me that I cannot figure out a whiz-bang modern way. If there were only one trait that varied, I could use the curiously recurring template pattern. But I see no way to extend that to arbitrary combinations of traits. I tried doing it using boost::enable_if, etc.. The specialized state info was easy. I managed to get the functions done, but only by resorting to non-friend external functions that have the this-pointer as a parameter. I never even figured out how to make the functions friends, much less member functions. The compiler (vc++ 2008) always complained that things didn't match. I would yell, "SFINAE, you moron!" but the moron is probably me. Perhaps tag-dispatch is the key. I haven't gotten very deeply into that. Surely it's possible, right? If so, what is best practice?

    Read the article

  • Using member variables inherited from a templated base class (C++)

    - by Aaron Becker
    I'm trying to use member variables of a templated base class in a derived class, as in this example: template <class dtype> struct A { int x; }; template <class dtype> struct B : public A<dtype> { void test() { int id1 = this->x; // always works int id2 = A<dtype>::x; // always works int id3 = B::x; // always works int id4 = x; // fails in gcc & clang, works in icc and xlc } }; gcc and clang are both very picky about using this variable, and require either an explicit scope or the explicit use of "this". With some other compilers (xlc and icc), things work as I would expect. Is this a case of xlc and icc allowing code that's not standard, or a bug in gcc and clang?

    Read the article

  • How do you return a pointer to a base class with a virtual function?

    - by Nick Sweet
    I have a base class called Element, a derived class called Vector, and I'm trying to redefine two virtual functions from Element in Vector. //element.h template <class T> class Element { public: Element(); virtual Element& plus(const Element&); virtual Element& minus(const Element&); }; and in another file //Vector.h #include "Element.h" template <class T> class Vector: public Element<T> { T x, y, z; public: //constructors Vector(); Vector(const T& x, const T& y = 0, const T& z =0); Vector(const Vector& u); ... //operations Element<T>& plus(const Element<T>& v) const; Element<T>& minus(const Element<T>& v) const; ... }; //sum template <class T> Element<T>& Vector<T>::plus(const Element<T>& v) const { Element<T>* ret = new Vector((x + v.x), (y + v.y), (z + v.z)); return *ret; } //difference template <class T> Element<T>& Vector<T>::minus(const Element<T>& v) const { Vector<T>* ret = new Vector((x - v.x), (y - v.y), (z - v.z)); return *ret; } but I always get error: 'const class Element' has no member named 'getx' So, can I define my virtual functions to take Vector& as an argument instead, or is there a way for me to access the data members of Vector through a pointer to Element? I'm still fairly new to inheritance polymorphism, fyi.

    Read the article

  • Odd C++ template behaviour with static member vars

    - by jon hanson
    This piece of code is supposed to calculate an approximation to e (i.e. the mathematical constant ~ 2.71828183) at compile-time, using the following approach; e1 = 2 / 1 e2 = (2 * 2 + 1) / (2 * 1) = 5 / 2 = 2.5 e3 = (3 * 5 + 1) / (3 * 2) = 16 / 6 ~ 2.67 e4 = (4 * 16 + 1) / (4 * 6) = 65 / 24 ~ 2.708 ... e(i) = (e(i-1).numer * i + 1) / (e(i-1).denom * i) The computation is returned via the result static member however, after 2 iterations it yields zero instead of the expected value. I've added a static member function f() to compute the same value and that doesn't exhibit the same problem. #include <iostream> #include <iomanip> // Recursive case. template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR = 2, int DENOMINATOR = 1, int I = 2> struct CalcE { static const double result; static double f () {return CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR * I + 1, DENOMINATOR * I, I + 1>::f ();} }; template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR, int DENOMINATOR, int I> const double CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR, DENOMINATOR, I>::result = CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR * I + 1, DENOMINATOR * I, I + 1>::result; // Base case. template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR, int DENOMINATOR> struct CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR, DENOMINATOR, ITERS> { static const double result; static double f () {return result;} }; template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR, int DENOMINATOR> const double CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR, DENOMINATOR, ITERS>::result = static_cast<double>(NUMERATOR) / DENOMINATOR; // Test it. int main (int argc, char* argv[]) { std::cout << std::setprecision (8); std::cout << "e2 ~ " << CalcE<2>::result << std::endl; std::cout << "e3 ~ " << CalcE<3>::result << std::endl; std::cout << "e4 ~ " << CalcE<4>::result << std::endl; std::cout << "e5 ~ " << CalcE<5>::result << std::endl; std::cout << std::endl; std::cout << "e2 ~ " << CalcE<2>::f () << std::endl; std::cout << "e3 ~ " << CalcE<3>::f () << std::endl; std::cout << "e4 ~ " << CalcE<4>::f () << std::endl; std::cout << "e5 ~ " << CalcE<5>::f () << std::endl; return 0; } I've tested this with VS 2008 and VS 2010, and get the same results in each case: e2 ~ 2 e3 ~ 2.5 e4 ~ 0 e5 ~ 0 e2 ~ 2 e3 ~ 2.5 e4 ~ 2.6666667 e5 ~ 2.7083333 Why does result not yield the expected values whereas f() does? According to Rotsor's comment below, this does work with GCC, so I guess the question is, am i relying on some type of undefined behaviour with regards to static initialisation order, or is this a bug with Visual Studio?

    Read the article

  • C++, function pointer to the template function pointer

    - by Ian
    I am having a pointer to the common static method class MyClass { private: static double ( *pfunction ) ( const Object *, const Object *); ... }; pointing to the static method class SomeClass { public: static double getA ( const Object *o1, const Object *o2); ... }; Initialization: double ( *MyClass::pfunction ) ( const Object *o1, const Object *o2 ) = &SomeClass::getA; I would like to convert this pointer to the static template function pointer: template <class T> static T ( *pfunction ) ( const Object <T> *, const Object <T> *); //Compile error where: class SomeClass { public: template <class T> static double getA ( const Object <T> *o1, const Object <T> *o2); ... }; But there is some error... Thanks for your help...

    Read the article

  • If you use MVC in your web app then you dont need to use Smarty(TemplateEngine) Right?

    - by Imran
    I'm just trying to understand the Templating(system). If you use MVC in your web application then you don't need to use something like Smarty(template engine) as you are already separating application code from presentation code anyway by using MVC right? please correct me? So am i correct in thinking it's MVC OR Templating or do you use both in your apps?If any one could explain this in detail it would be great. Thank you in advance;-)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >