Named, static dispatching with std::variant












8














I need to fill in some template magic to make the following code snippet to work.



The problem is that I want to be able to define a visitor class for std::variant with named static methods accepting two arguments. How can I fill in Applicator::apply() to make the dispatching work?



struct EventA {};

struct EventB {};

struct EventC {};

using Event = std::variant<EventA, EventB, EventC>;

struct Visitor {
enum class LastEvent { None, A, B, C };

struct State {
LastEvent last_event = LastEvent::None;
};

static State apply(State s, EventA e) { return State{LastEvent::A}; }

static State apply(State s, EventB e) { return State{LastEvent::B}; }
};

template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {

static State apply(State s, Event e) {

/*** Start of pseudo code ***/
if (Visitor can apply) {
return Visitor::apply(s, e);
}
/*** End of pseudo code ***/

// Else, don't update state state
return s;
}
};

int main() {
// Handled by visitor
State s1 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventA{});
assert(s1.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::A);

// Handled by visitor
State s2 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventB{});
assert(s2.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::B);

// NOT handled by visitor
State s3 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventC{});
assert(s3.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::None);
}









share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Aside: is State really meant to be a member of Visitor?
    – Caleth
    yesterday










  • @Caleth yes, the Visitor is just used as a namespace to handle different kinds of events so it should encapsulate both the state and the operations that operates on that state. This is a very contrived example though.
    – aerkenemesis
    yesterday






  • 1




    then it should be typename Visitor::State in Applicator (or Visitor::State if you drop the template parameter that shadows the class)
    – Caleth
    yesterday










  • Well I didn't try compiling it since it contains pseudo code, as I said - it is a contrived example.
    – aerkenemesis
    yesterday
















8














I need to fill in some template magic to make the following code snippet to work.



The problem is that I want to be able to define a visitor class for std::variant with named static methods accepting two arguments. How can I fill in Applicator::apply() to make the dispatching work?



struct EventA {};

struct EventB {};

struct EventC {};

using Event = std::variant<EventA, EventB, EventC>;

struct Visitor {
enum class LastEvent { None, A, B, C };

struct State {
LastEvent last_event = LastEvent::None;
};

static State apply(State s, EventA e) { return State{LastEvent::A}; }

static State apply(State s, EventB e) { return State{LastEvent::B}; }
};

template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {

static State apply(State s, Event e) {

/*** Start of pseudo code ***/
if (Visitor can apply) {
return Visitor::apply(s, e);
}
/*** End of pseudo code ***/

// Else, don't update state state
return s;
}
};

int main() {
// Handled by visitor
State s1 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventA{});
assert(s1.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::A);

// Handled by visitor
State s2 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventB{});
assert(s2.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::B);

// NOT handled by visitor
State s3 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventC{});
assert(s3.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::None);
}









share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Aside: is State really meant to be a member of Visitor?
    – Caleth
    yesterday










  • @Caleth yes, the Visitor is just used as a namespace to handle different kinds of events so it should encapsulate both the state and the operations that operates on that state. This is a very contrived example though.
    – aerkenemesis
    yesterday






  • 1




    then it should be typename Visitor::State in Applicator (or Visitor::State if you drop the template parameter that shadows the class)
    – Caleth
    yesterday










  • Well I didn't try compiling it since it contains pseudo code, as I said - it is a contrived example.
    – aerkenemesis
    yesterday














8












8








8







I need to fill in some template magic to make the following code snippet to work.



The problem is that I want to be able to define a visitor class for std::variant with named static methods accepting two arguments. How can I fill in Applicator::apply() to make the dispatching work?



struct EventA {};

struct EventB {};

struct EventC {};

using Event = std::variant<EventA, EventB, EventC>;

struct Visitor {
enum class LastEvent { None, A, B, C };

struct State {
LastEvent last_event = LastEvent::None;
};

static State apply(State s, EventA e) { return State{LastEvent::A}; }

static State apply(State s, EventB e) { return State{LastEvent::B}; }
};

template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {

static State apply(State s, Event e) {

/*** Start of pseudo code ***/
if (Visitor can apply) {
return Visitor::apply(s, e);
}
/*** End of pseudo code ***/

// Else, don't update state state
return s;
}
};

int main() {
// Handled by visitor
State s1 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventA{});
assert(s1.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::A);

// Handled by visitor
State s2 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventB{});
assert(s2.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::B);

// NOT handled by visitor
State s3 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventC{});
assert(s3.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::None);
}









share|improve this question















I need to fill in some template magic to make the following code snippet to work.



The problem is that I want to be able to define a visitor class for std::variant with named static methods accepting two arguments. How can I fill in Applicator::apply() to make the dispatching work?



struct EventA {};

struct EventB {};

struct EventC {};

using Event = std::variant<EventA, EventB, EventC>;

struct Visitor {
enum class LastEvent { None, A, B, C };

struct State {
LastEvent last_event = LastEvent::None;
};

static State apply(State s, EventA e) { return State{LastEvent::A}; }

static State apply(State s, EventB e) { return State{LastEvent::B}; }
};

template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {

static State apply(State s, Event e) {

/*** Start of pseudo code ***/
if (Visitor can apply) {
return Visitor::apply(s, e);
}
/*** End of pseudo code ***/

// Else, don't update state state
return s;
}
};

int main() {
// Handled by visitor
State s1 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventA{});
assert(s1.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::A);

// Handled by visitor
State s2 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventB{});
assert(s2.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::B);

// NOT handled by visitor
State s3 = Applicator<Visitor>::apply(State{}, EventC{});
assert(s3.last_event == Visitor::LastEvent::None);
}






c++ c++17






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









Deduplicator

34k64787




34k64787










asked yesterday









aerkenemesis

464312




464312








  • 1




    Aside: is State really meant to be a member of Visitor?
    – Caleth
    yesterday










  • @Caleth yes, the Visitor is just used as a namespace to handle different kinds of events so it should encapsulate both the state and the operations that operates on that state. This is a very contrived example though.
    – aerkenemesis
    yesterday






  • 1




    then it should be typename Visitor::State in Applicator (or Visitor::State if you drop the template parameter that shadows the class)
    – Caleth
    yesterday










  • Well I didn't try compiling it since it contains pseudo code, as I said - it is a contrived example.
    – aerkenemesis
    yesterday














  • 1




    Aside: is State really meant to be a member of Visitor?
    – Caleth
    yesterday










  • @Caleth yes, the Visitor is just used as a namespace to handle different kinds of events so it should encapsulate both the state and the operations that operates on that state. This is a very contrived example though.
    – aerkenemesis
    yesterday






  • 1




    then it should be typename Visitor::State in Applicator (or Visitor::State if you drop the template parameter that shadows the class)
    – Caleth
    yesterday










  • Well I didn't try compiling it since it contains pseudo code, as I said - it is a contrived example.
    – aerkenemesis
    yesterday








1




1




Aside: is State really meant to be a member of Visitor?
– Caleth
yesterday




Aside: is State really meant to be a member of Visitor?
– Caleth
yesterday












@Caleth yes, the Visitor is just used as a namespace to handle different kinds of events so it should encapsulate both the state and the operations that operates on that state. This is a very contrived example though.
– aerkenemesis
yesterday




@Caleth yes, the Visitor is just used as a namespace to handle different kinds of events so it should encapsulate both the state and the operations that operates on that state. This is a very contrived example though.
– aerkenemesis
yesterday




1




1




then it should be typename Visitor::State in Applicator (or Visitor::State if you drop the template parameter that shadows the class)
– Caleth
yesterday




then it should be typename Visitor::State in Applicator (or Visitor::State if you drop the template parameter that shadows the class)
– Caleth
yesterday












Well I didn't try compiling it since it contains pseudo code, as I said - it is a contrived example.
– aerkenemesis
yesterday




Well I didn't try compiling it since it contains pseudo code, as I said - it is a contrived example.
– aerkenemesis
yesterday












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















5














Another solution:



using State = Visitor::State;

template<class Visitor>
struct VisitorProxy {
State s;

template<class E>
auto operator()(E const& e) -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) {
return Visitor::apply(s, e);
}

template<class E>
State operator()(E const&) const {
return s;
}
};

template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
static State apply(State s, Event e) {
VisitorProxy<Visitor> p{s};
return std::visit(p, e);
}
};





share|improve this answer

















  • 2




    Priorizing on const... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
    – Quentin
    yesterday










  • @Quentin Yep, const makes it a worse conversion for VisitorProxy<Visitor>* this. Alternatively, volatile would also work.
    – Maxim Egorushkin
    yesterday








  • 1




    Thank you! This worked perfectly. I didn't know you could do SFINAE on the return type like that :)
    – aerkenemesis
    yesterday










  • @aerkenemesis Trailing return type with decltypeoften makes enable_if unnecessary.
    – Maxim Egorushkin
    yesterday



















5














Using the now quite common overloaded class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the constness of their operator()) to create a SFINAE-capable functor modeling the logic you're lookig for:



template<class... Ts> struct overloaded : Ts... { using Ts::operator()...; };
template<class... Ts> overloaded(Ts...) -> overloaded<Ts...>;

// ...

template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
static typename Visitor::State apply(typename Visitor::State s, Event e) {
return std::visit(overloaded{
[&s](auto e) mutable -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); },
[&s](auto) { return s; }
}, e);
}
};


Note that this ICEs all versions of Clang I've tested on Wandbox, but I haven't found a workaround. Perfect forwarding is left as an exercise to the reader :)






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Is it not UB to pass Event into ...?
    – Maxim Egorushkin
    yesterday






  • 1




    @MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch your const-based ordering instead, much safer ;)
    – Quentin
    yesterday










  • Why is it implementation defined to pass Event into ...?
    – Kilian
    yesterday






  • 1




    @Kilian because varargs are a compatibility feature with C source and haven't been adapted much. For example, on MSVC they will perform the equivalent of a std::memcpy, without calling constructors or destructors.
    – Quentin
    yesterday



















3














If the Visitor can always apply, then the code can be as simple as



return std::visit([&](auto e) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); }, e);


But since Visitor cannot always apply, we need to use SFINAE, which requires a set of overloaded function templates. The function templates can be defined like this:



template<class EventType>
static auto applyHelper(State s, EventType e, int)
-> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) // only enabled if Visitor::apply(s, e) is a valid expression
{
return Visitor::apply(s, e);
}

template<class EventType>
static State applyHelper(State s, EventType e, long) // long gives a lower precedence
// in overload resolution when argument is 0
{
return s;
}


Then the implementation of Applicator::apply can be



  static State apply(State s, Event e) {
return std::visit([&](auto e) { return applyHelper(s, e, 0); }, e);
}





share|improve this answer





























    3














    Well, std::is_invocable_r looks like the tool of choice.

    Unfortunately, you would have to get the type of the right overload, which would completely defeat the purpose.



    Instead, go one step back and use std::is_detected from library fundamentals TS v2 or equivalent and a template:



    template <class... Xs>
    using can_Visitor_apply = decltype(Visitor::apply(std::declval<Xs>()...));

    if constexpr(std::is_detected_convertible<State, can_Visitor_apply, State&, Event&>())
    return Visitor::apply(s, e);


    The advantage is that you have a compile-time-constant to hang arbitrary decisions on. The disadvantage is not (yet) having a function which you can simply just call and forget about it.






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer






      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      });
      });
      }, "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "1"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54036439%2fnamed-static-dispatching-with-stdvariant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5














      Another solution:



      using State = Visitor::State;

      template<class Visitor>
      struct VisitorProxy {
      State s;

      template<class E>
      auto operator()(E const& e) -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) {
      return Visitor::apply(s, e);
      }

      template<class E>
      State operator()(E const&) const {
      return s;
      }
      };

      template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
      static State apply(State s, Event e) {
      VisitorProxy<Visitor> p{s};
      return std::visit(p, e);
      }
      };





      share|improve this answer

















      • 2




        Priorizing on const... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
        – Quentin
        yesterday










      • @Quentin Yep, const makes it a worse conversion for VisitorProxy<Visitor>* this. Alternatively, volatile would also work.
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday








      • 1




        Thank you! This worked perfectly. I didn't know you could do SFINAE on the return type like that :)
        – aerkenemesis
        yesterday










      • @aerkenemesis Trailing return type with decltypeoften makes enable_if unnecessary.
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday
















      5














      Another solution:



      using State = Visitor::State;

      template<class Visitor>
      struct VisitorProxy {
      State s;

      template<class E>
      auto operator()(E const& e) -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) {
      return Visitor::apply(s, e);
      }

      template<class E>
      State operator()(E const&) const {
      return s;
      }
      };

      template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
      static State apply(State s, Event e) {
      VisitorProxy<Visitor> p{s};
      return std::visit(p, e);
      }
      };





      share|improve this answer

















      • 2




        Priorizing on const... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
        – Quentin
        yesterday










      • @Quentin Yep, const makes it a worse conversion for VisitorProxy<Visitor>* this. Alternatively, volatile would also work.
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday








      • 1




        Thank you! This worked perfectly. I didn't know you could do SFINAE on the return type like that :)
        – aerkenemesis
        yesterday










      • @aerkenemesis Trailing return type with decltypeoften makes enable_if unnecessary.
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday














      5












      5








      5






      Another solution:



      using State = Visitor::State;

      template<class Visitor>
      struct VisitorProxy {
      State s;

      template<class E>
      auto operator()(E const& e) -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) {
      return Visitor::apply(s, e);
      }

      template<class E>
      State operator()(E const&) const {
      return s;
      }
      };

      template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
      static State apply(State s, Event e) {
      VisitorProxy<Visitor> p{s};
      return std::visit(p, e);
      }
      };





      share|improve this answer












      Another solution:



      using State = Visitor::State;

      template<class Visitor>
      struct VisitorProxy {
      State s;

      template<class E>
      auto operator()(E const& e) -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) {
      return Visitor::apply(s, e);
      }

      template<class E>
      State operator()(E const&) const {
      return s;
      }
      };

      template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
      static State apply(State s, Event e) {
      VisitorProxy<Visitor> p{s};
      return std::visit(p, e);
      }
      };






      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      Maxim Egorushkin

      85.4k1199182




      85.4k1199182








      • 2




        Priorizing on const... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
        – Quentin
        yesterday










      • @Quentin Yep, const makes it a worse conversion for VisitorProxy<Visitor>* this. Alternatively, volatile would also work.
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday








      • 1




        Thank you! This worked perfectly. I didn't know you could do SFINAE on the return type like that :)
        – aerkenemesis
        yesterday










      • @aerkenemesis Trailing return type with decltypeoften makes enable_if unnecessary.
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday














      • 2




        Priorizing on const... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
        – Quentin
        yesterday










      • @Quentin Yep, const makes it a worse conversion for VisitorProxy<Visitor>* this. Alternatively, volatile would also work.
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday








      • 1




        Thank you! This worked perfectly. I didn't know you could do SFINAE on the return type like that :)
        – aerkenemesis
        yesterday










      • @aerkenemesis Trailing return type with decltypeoften makes enable_if unnecessary.
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday








      2




      2




      Priorizing on const... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
      – Quentin
      yesterday




      Priorizing on const... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
      – Quentin
      yesterday












      @Quentin Yep, const makes it a worse conversion for VisitorProxy<Visitor>* this. Alternatively, volatile would also work.
      – Maxim Egorushkin
      yesterday






      @Quentin Yep, const makes it a worse conversion for VisitorProxy<Visitor>* this. Alternatively, volatile would also work.
      – Maxim Egorushkin
      yesterday






      1




      1




      Thank you! This worked perfectly. I didn't know you could do SFINAE on the return type like that :)
      – aerkenemesis
      yesterday




      Thank you! This worked perfectly. I didn't know you could do SFINAE on the return type like that :)
      – aerkenemesis
      yesterday












      @aerkenemesis Trailing return type with decltypeoften makes enable_if unnecessary.
      – Maxim Egorushkin
      yesterday




      @aerkenemesis Trailing return type with decltypeoften makes enable_if unnecessary.
      – Maxim Egorushkin
      yesterday













      5














      Using the now quite common overloaded class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the constness of their operator()) to create a SFINAE-capable functor modeling the logic you're lookig for:



      template<class... Ts> struct overloaded : Ts... { using Ts::operator()...; };
      template<class... Ts> overloaded(Ts...) -> overloaded<Ts...>;

      // ...

      template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
      static typename Visitor::State apply(typename Visitor::State s, Event e) {
      return std::visit(overloaded{
      [&s](auto e) mutable -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); },
      [&s](auto) { return s; }
      }, e);
      }
      };


      Note that this ICEs all versions of Clang I've tested on Wandbox, but I haven't found a workaround. Perfect forwarding is left as an exercise to the reader :)






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1




        Is it not UB to pass Event into ...?
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday






      • 1




        @MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch your const-based ordering instead, much safer ;)
        – Quentin
        yesterday










      • Why is it implementation defined to pass Event into ...?
        – Kilian
        yesterday






      • 1




        @Kilian because varargs are a compatibility feature with C source and haven't been adapted much. For example, on MSVC they will perform the equivalent of a std::memcpy, without calling constructors or destructors.
        – Quentin
        yesterday
















      5














      Using the now quite common overloaded class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the constness of their operator()) to create a SFINAE-capable functor modeling the logic you're lookig for:



      template<class... Ts> struct overloaded : Ts... { using Ts::operator()...; };
      template<class... Ts> overloaded(Ts...) -> overloaded<Ts...>;

      // ...

      template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
      static typename Visitor::State apply(typename Visitor::State s, Event e) {
      return std::visit(overloaded{
      [&s](auto e) mutable -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); },
      [&s](auto) { return s; }
      }, e);
      }
      };


      Note that this ICEs all versions of Clang I've tested on Wandbox, but I haven't found a workaround. Perfect forwarding is left as an exercise to the reader :)






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1




        Is it not UB to pass Event into ...?
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday






      • 1




        @MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch your const-based ordering instead, much safer ;)
        – Quentin
        yesterday










      • Why is it implementation defined to pass Event into ...?
        – Kilian
        yesterday






      • 1




        @Kilian because varargs are a compatibility feature with C source and haven't been adapted much. For example, on MSVC they will perform the equivalent of a std::memcpy, without calling constructors or destructors.
        – Quentin
        yesterday














      5












      5








      5






      Using the now quite common overloaded class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the constness of their operator()) to create a SFINAE-capable functor modeling the logic you're lookig for:



      template<class... Ts> struct overloaded : Ts... { using Ts::operator()...; };
      template<class... Ts> overloaded(Ts...) -> overloaded<Ts...>;

      // ...

      template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
      static typename Visitor::State apply(typename Visitor::State s, Event e) {
      return std::visit(overloaded{
      [&s](auto e) mutable -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); },
      [&s](auto) { return s; }
      }, e);
      }
      };


      Note that this ICEs all versions of Clang I've tested on Wandbox, but I haven't found a workaround. Perfect forwarding is left as an exercise to the reader :)






      share|improve this answer














      Using the now quite common overloaded class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the constness of their operator()) to create a SFINAE-capable functor modeling the logic you're lookig for:



      template<class... Ts> struct overloaded : Ts... { using Ts::operator()...; };
      template<class... Ts> overloaded(Ts...) -> overloaded<Ts...>;

      // ...

      template <typename Visitor> struct Applicator {
      static typename Visitor::State apply(typename Visitor::State s, Event e) {
      return std::visit(overloaded{
      [&s](auto e) mutable -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); },
      [&s](auto) { return s; }
      }, e);
      }
      };


      Note that this ICEs all versions of Clang I've tested on Wandbox, but I haven't found a workaround. Perfect forwarding is left as an exercise to the reader :)







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited yesterday

























      answered yesterday









      Quentin

      44.4k584140




      44.4k584140








      • 1




        Is it not UB to pass Event into ...?
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday






      • 1




        @MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch your const-based ordering instead, much safer ;)
        – Quentin
        yesterday










      • Why is it implementation defined to pass Event into ...?
        – Kilian
        yesterday






      • 1




        @Kilian because varargs are a compatibility feature with C source and haven't been adapted much. For example, on MSVC they will perform the equivalent of a std::memcpy, without calling constructors or destructors.
        – Quentin
        yesterday














      • 1




        Is it not UB to pass Event into ...?
        – Maxim Egorushkin
        yesterday






      • 1




        @MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch your const-based ordering instead, much safer ;)
        – Quentin
        yesterday










      • Why is it implementation defined to pass Event into ...?
        – Kilian
        yesterday






      • 1




        @Kilian because varargs are a compatibility feature with C source and haven't been adapted much. For example, on MSVC they will perform the equivalent of a std::memcpy, without calling constructors or destructors.
        – Quentin
        yesterday








      1




      1




      Is it not UB to pass Event into ...?
      – Maxim Egorushkin
      yesterday




      Is it not UB to pass Event into ...?
      – Maxim Egorushkin
      yesterday




      1




      1




      @MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch your const-based ordering instead, much safer ;)
      – Quentin
      yesterday




      @MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch your const-based ordering instead, much safer ;)
      – Quentin
      yesterday












      Why is it implementation defined to pass Event into ...?
      – Kilian
      yesterday




      Why is it implementation defined to pass Event into ...?
      – Kilian
      yesterday




      1




      1




      @Kilian because varargs are a compatibility feature with C source and haven't been adapted much. For example, on MSVC they will perform the equivalent of a std::memcpy, without calling constructors or destructors.
      – Quentin
      yesterday




      @Kilian because varargs are a compatibility feature with C source and haven't been adapted much. For example, on MSVC they will perform the equivalent of a std::memcpy, without calling constructors or destructors.
      – Quentin
      yesterday











      3














      If the Visitor can always apply, then the code can be as simple as



      return std::visit([&](auto e) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); }, e);


      But since Visitor cannot always apply, we need to use SFINAE, which requires a set of overloaded function templates. The function templates can be defined like this:



      template<class EventType>
      static auto applyHelper(State s, EventType e, int)
      -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) // only enabled if Visitor::apply(s, e) is a valid expression
      {
      return Visitor::apply(s, e);
      }

      template<class EventType>
      static State applyHelper(State s, EventType e, long) // long gives a lower precedence
      // in overload resolution when argument is 0
      {
      return s;
      }


      Then the implementation of Applicator::apply can be



        static State apply(State s, Event e) {
      return std::visit([&](auto e) { return applyHelper(s, e, 0); }, e);
      }





      share|improve this answer


























        3














        If the Visitor can always apply, then the code can be as simple as



        return std::visit([&](auto e) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); }, e);


        But since Visitor cannot always apply, we need to use SFINAE, which requires a set of overloaded function templates. The function templates can be defined like this:



        template<class EventType>
        static auto applyHelper(State s, EventType e, int)
        -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) // only enabled if Visitor::apply(s, e) is a valid expression
        {
        return Visitor::apply(s, e);
        }

        template<class EventType>
        static State applyHelper(State s, EventType e, long) // long gives a lower precedence
        // in overload resolution when argument is 0
        {
        return s;
        }


        Then the implementation of Applicator::apply can be



          static State apply(State s, Event e) {
        return std::visit([&](auto e) { return applyHelper(s, e, 0); }, e);
        }





        share|improve this answer
























          3












          3








          3






          If the Visitor can always apply, then the code can be as simple as



          return std::visit([&](auto e) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); }, e);


          But since Visitor cannot always apply, we need to use SFINAE, which requires a set of overloaded function templates. The function templates can be defined like this:



          template<class EventType>
          static auto applyHelper(State s, EventType e, int)
          -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) // only enabled if Visitor::apply(s, e) is a valid expression
          {
          return Visitor::apply(s, e);
          }

          template<class EventType>
          static State applyHelper(State s, EventType e, long) // long gives a lower precedence
          // in overload resolution when argument is 0
          {
          return s;
          }


          Then the implementation of Applicator::apply can be



            static State apply(State s, Event e) {
          return std::visit([&](auto e) { return applyHelper(s, e, 0); }, e);
          }





          share|improve this answer












          If the Visitor can always apply, then the code can be as simple as



          return std::visit([&](auto e) { return Visitor::apply(s, e); }, e);


          But since Visitor cannot always apply, we need to use SFINAE, which requires a set of overloaded function templates. The function templates can be defined like this:



          template<class EventType>
          static auto applyHelper(State s, EventType e, int)
          -> decltype(Visitor::apply(s, e)) // only enabled if Visitor::apply(s, e) is a valid expression
          {
          return Visitor::apply(s, e);
          }

          template<class EventType>
          static State applyHelper(State s, EventType e, long) // long gives a lower precedence
          // in overload resolution when argument is 0
          {
          return s;
          }


          Then the implementation of Applicator::apply can be



            static State apply(State s, Event e) {
          return std::visit([&](auto e) { return applyHelper(s, e, 0); }, e);
          }






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          cpplearner

          4,92521936




          4,92521936























              3














              Well, std::is_invocable_r looks like the tool of choice.

              Unfortunately, you would have to get the type of the right overload, which would completely defeat the purpose.



              Instead, go one step back and use std::is_detected from library fundamentals TS v2 or equivalent and a template:



              template <class... Xs>
              using can_Visitor_apply = decltype(Visitor::apply(std::declval<Xs>()...));

              if constexpr(std::is_detected_convertible<State, can_Visitor_apply, State&, Event&>())
              return Visitor::apply(s, e);


              The advantage is that you have a compile-time-constant to hang arbitrary decisions on. The disadvantage is not (yet) having a function which you can simply just call and forget about it.






              share|improve this answer




























                3














                Well, std::is_invocable_r looks like the tool of choice.

                Unfortunately, you would have to get the type of the right overload, which would completely defeat the purpose.



                Instead, go one step back and use std::is_detected from library fundamentals TS v2 or equivalent and a template:



                template <class... Xs>
                using can_Visitor_apply = decltype(Visitor::apply(std::declval<Xs>()...));

                if constexpr(std::is_detected_convertible<State, can_Visitor_apply, State&, Event&>())
                return Visitor::apply(s, e);


                The advantage is that you have a compile-time-constant to hang arbitrary decisions on. The disadvantage is not (yet) having a function which you can simply just call and forget about it.






                share|improve this answer


























                  3












                  3








                  3






                  Well, std::is_invocable_r looks like the tool of choice.

                  Unfortunately, you would have to get the type of the right overload, which would completely defeat the purpose.



                  Instead, go one step back and use std::is_detected from library fundamentals TS v2 or equivalent and a template:



                  template <class... Xs>
                  using can_Visitor_apply = decltype(Visitor::apply(std::declval<Xs>()...));

                  if constexpr(std::is_detected_convertible<State, can_Visitor_apply, State&, Event&>())
                  return Visitor::apply(s, e);


                  The advantage is that you have a compile-time-constant to hang arbitrary decisions on. The disadvantage is not (yet) having a function which you can simply just call and forget about it.






                  share|improve this answer














                  Well, std::is_invocable_r looks like the tool of choice.

                  Unfortunately, you would have to get the type of the right overload, which would completely defeat the purpose.



                  Instead, go one step back and use std::is_detected from library fundamentals TS v2 or equivalent and a template:



                  template <class... Xs>
                  using can_Visitor_apply = decltype(Visitor::apply(std::declval<Xs>()...));

                  if constexpr(std::is_detected_convertible<State, can_Visitor_apply, State&, Event&>())
                  return Visitor::apply(s, e);


                  The advantage is that you have a compile-time-constant to hang arbitrary decisions on. The disadvantage is not (yet) having a function which you can simply just call and forget about it.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited yesterday

























                  answered yesterday









                  Deduplicator

                  34k64787




                  34k64787






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54036439%2fnamed-static-dispatching-with-stdvariant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      An IMO inspired problem

                      Management

                      Investment