Named, static dispatching with std::variant
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
add a comment |
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
1
Aside: isState
really meant to be a member ofVisitor
?
– 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 betypename Visitor::State
inApplicator
(orVisitor::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
add a comment |
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
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
c++ c++17
edited yesterday
Deduplicator
34k64787
34k64787
asked yesterday
aerkenemesis
464312
464312
1
Aside: isState
really meant to be a member ofVisitor
?
– 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 betypename Visitor::State
inApplicator
(orVisitor::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
add a comment |
1
Aside: isState
really meant to be a member ofVisitor
?
– 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 betypename Visitor::State
inApplicator
(orVisitor::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
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
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);
}
};
2
Priorizing onconst
... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
– Quentin
yesterday
@Quentin Yep,const
makes it a worse conversion forVisitorProxy<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 withdecltype
often makesenable_if
unnecessary.
– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
add a comment |
Using the now quite common overloaded
class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the const
ness 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 :)
1
Is it not UB to passEvent
into...
?
– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
1
@MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch yourconst
-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 astd::memcpy
, without calling constructors or destructors.
– Quentin
yesterday
add a comment |
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);
}
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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);
}
};
2
Priorizing onconst
... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
– Quentin
yesterday
@Quentin Yep,const
makes it a worse conversion forVisitorProxy<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 withdecltype
often makesenable_if
unnecessary.
– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
add a comment |
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);
}
};
2
Priorizing onconst
... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
– Quentin
yesterday
@Quentin Yep,const
makes it a worse conversion forVisitorProxy<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 withdecltype
often makesenable_if
unnecessary.
– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
add a comment |
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);
}
};
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);
}
};
answered yesterday
Maxim Egorushkin
85.4k1199182
85.4k1199182
2
Priorizing onconst
... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
– Quentin
yesterday
@Quentin Yep,const
makes it a worse conversion forVisitorProxy<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 withdecltype
often makesenable_if
unnecessary.
– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
add a comment |
2
Priorizing onconst
... Now that's a clever trick I didn't see before. Neat!
– Quentin
yesterday
@Quentin Yep,const
makes it a worse conversion forVisitorProxy<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 withdecltype
often makesenable_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
decltype
often makes enable_if
unnecessary.– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
@aerkenemesis Trailing return type with
decltype
often makes enable_if
unnecessary.– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
add a comment |
Using the now quite common overloaded
class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the const
ness 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 :)
1
Is it not UB to passEvent
into...
?
– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
1
@MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch yourconst
-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 astd::memcpy
, without calling constructors or destructors.
– Quentin
yesterday
add a comment |
Using the now quite common overloaded
class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the const
ness 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 :)
1
Is it not UB to passEvent
into...
?
– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
1
@MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch yourconst
-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 astd::memcpy
, without calling constructors or destructors.
– Quentin
yesterday
add a comment |
Using the now quite common overloaded
class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the const
ness 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 :)
Using the now quite common overloaded
class template trick (And Maxim's trick to order the lambdas based on the const
ness 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 :)
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Quentin
44.4k584140
44.4k584140
1
Is it not UB to passEvent
into...
?
– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
1
@MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch yourconst
-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 astd::memcpy
, without calling constructors or destructors.
– Quentin
yesterday
add a comment |
1
Is it not UB to passEvent
into...
?
– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday
1
@MaximEgorushkin I thought it was okay, but apparently it is implementation-defined... I'll pinch yourconst
-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 astd::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
add a comment |
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);
}
add a comment |
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);
}
add a comment |
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);
}
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);
}
answered yesterday
cpplearner
4,92521936
4,92521936
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Deduplicator
34k64787
34k64787
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
Aside: is
State
really meant to be a member ofVisitor
?– 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
inApplicator
(orVisitor::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