| 1 | // Boost.TypeErasure library |
| 2 | // |
| 3 | // Copyright 2011 Steven Watanabe |
| 4 | // |
| 5 | // Distributed under the Boost Software License Version 1.0. (See |
| 6 | // accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at |
| 7 | // http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) |
| 8 | // |
| 9 | // $Id$ |
| 10 | |
| 11 | #include <boost/type_erasure/concept_interface.hpp> |
| 12 | #include <boost/type_erasure/param.hpp> |
| 13 | #include <boost/type_erasure/derived.hpp> |
| 14 | #include <boost/type_erasure/is_placeholder.hpp> |
| 15 | #include <boost/utility/enable_if.hpp> |
| 16 | |
| 17 | namespace mpl = boost::mpl; |
| 18 | using namespace boost::type_erasure; |
| 19 | |
| 20 | //[overload1 |
| 21 | /*` |
| 22 | __concept_interface allows us to inject arbitrary declarations |
| 23 | into an __any. This is very flexible, but there are some pitfalls |
| 24 | to watch out for. Sometimes we want to use the same concept several |
| 25 | times with different parameters. Specializing __concept_interface |
| 26 | in a way that handles overloads correctly is a bit tricky. |
| 27 | Given a concept foo, we'd like the following to work: |
| 28 | |
| 29 | `` |
| 30 | any< |
| 31 | mpl::vector< |
| 32 | foo<_self, int>, |
| 33 | foo<_self, double>, |
| 34 | copy_constructible<> |
| 35 | > |
| 36 | > x = ...; |
| 37 | x.foo(1); // calls foo(int) |
| 38 | x.foo(1.0); // calls foo(double) |
| 39 | `` |
| 40 | |
| 41 | Because __concept_interface creates a linear |
| 42 | inheritance chain, without some extra work, |
| 43 | one overload of foo will hide the other. |
| 44 | |
| 45 | Here are the techniques that I found work reliably. |
| 46 | |
| 47 | For member functions I couldn't find a way to |
| 48 | avoid using two specializations. |
| 49 | */ |
| 50 | |
| 51 | template<class T, class U> |
| 52 | struct foo |
| 53 | { |
| 54 | static void apply(T& t, const U& u) { t.foo(u); } |
| 55 | }; |
| 56 | |
| 57 | namespace boost { |
| 58 | namespace type_erasure { |
| 59 | |
| 60 | template<class T, class U, class Base, class Enable> |
| 61 | struct concept_interface< ::foo<T, U>, Base, T, Enable> : Base |
| 62 | { |
| 63 | typedef void _fun_defined; |
| 64 | void foo(typename as_param<Base, const U&>::type arg) |
| 65 | { |
| 66 | call(::foo<T, U>(), *this, arg); |
| 67 | } |
| 68 | }; |
| 69 | |
| 70 | template<class T, class U, class Base> |
| 71 | struct concept_interface< ::foo<T, U>, Base, T, typename Base::_fun_defined> : Base |
| 72 | { |
| 73 | using Base::foo; |
| 74 | void foo(typename as_param<Base, const U&>::type arg) |
| 75 | { |
| 76 | call(::foo<T, U>(), *this, arg); |
| 77 | } |
| 78 | }; |
| 79 | |
| 80 | } |
| 81 | } |
| 82 | |
| 83 | /*` |
| 84 | This uses SFINAE to detect whether a using declaration is |
| 85 | needed. Note that the fourth argument of __concept_interface |
| 86 | is a dummy parameter which is always void and is |
| 87 | intended to be used for SFINAE. |
| 88 | Another solution to the problem that I've used |
| 89 | in the past is to inject a dummy declaration of `fun` |
| 90 | and always put in a using declaration. This is an |
| 91 | inferior solution for several reasons. It requires an |
| 92 | extra interface to add the dummy overload. It also |
| 93 | means that `fun` is always overloaded, even if the |
| 94 | user only asked for one overload. This makes it |
| 95 | harder to take the address of fun. |
| 96 | |
| 97 | Note that while using SFINAE requires some code |
| 98 | to be duplicated, the amount of code that has to |
| 99 | be duplicated is relatively small, since the implementation |
| 100 | of __concept_interface is usually a one liner. It's |
| 101 | a bit annoying, but I believe it's an acceptable cost |
| 102 | in lieu of a better solution. |
| 103 | */ |
| 104 | |
| 105 | //] |
| 106 | //[overload2 |
| 107 | /*` |
| 108 | For free functions you can use inline friends. |
| 109 | */ |
| 110 | |
| 111 | template<class T, class U> |
| 112 | struct bar_concept |
| 113 | { |
| 114 | static void apply(T& t, const U& u) { bar(t, u); } |
| 115 | }; |
| 116 | |
| 117 | namespace boost { |
| 118 | namespace type_erasure { |
| 119 | |
| 120 | template<class T, class U, class Base> |
| 121 | struct concept_interface< ::bar_concept<T, U>, Base, T> : Base |
| 122 | { |
| 123 | friend void bar(typename derived<Base>::type& t, typename as_param<Base, const U&>::type u) |
| 124 | { |
| 125 | call(::bar_concept<T, U>(), t, u); |
| 126 | } |
| 127 | }; |
| 128 | |
| 129 | template<class T, class U, class Base> |
| 130 | struct concept_interface< ::bar_concept<T, U>, Base, U, typename boost::disable_if<is_placeholder<T> >::type> : Base |
| 131 | { |
| 132 | using Base::bar; |
| 133 | friend void bar(T& t, const typename derived<Base>::type& u) |
| 134 | { |
| 135 | call(::bar_concept<T, U>(), t, u); |
| 136 | } |
| 137 | }; |
| 138 | |
| 139 | } |
| 140 | } |
| 141 | |
| 142 | /*` |
| 143 | Basically we have to specialize __concept_interface once for |
| 144 | each argument to make sure that an overload is injected into |
| 145 | the first argument that's a placeholder. |
| 146 | As you might have noticed, the argument types are a bit tricky. |
| 147 | In the first specialization, the first argument uses __derived |
| 148 | instead of __as_param. The reason for this is that if we used |
| 149 | __as_param, then we could end up violating the one definition |
| 150 | rule by defining the same function twice. Similarly, we use |
| 151 | SFINAE in the second specialization to make sure that bar is |
| 152 | only defined once when both arguments are placeholders. It's |
| 153 | possible to merge the two specializations with a bit of metaprogramming, |
| 154 | but unless you have a lot of arguments, it's probably not |
| 155 | worth while. |
| 156 | */ |
| 157 | |
| 158 | //] |
| 159 | |
| 160 | //[overload |
| 161 | //` (For the source of the examples in this section see |
| 162 | //` [@boost:/libs/type_erasure/example/overload.cpp overload.cpp]) |
| 163 | //` [overload1] |
| 164 | //` [overload2] |
| 165 | //] |
| 166 | |