c++ function map implementation

Question

I have been playing around with variadic templates in the new c++ standard and came up with a map function (headers + using decs excluded):

template<typename T>
T square(T i)
{
        return i * i;
}

template <typename T, typename... Ts>
const tuple<Ts...> map(const T f, const Ts...args)
{
        return make_tuple(f(args)...);
}

int main(int c, char *argv[])
{
        tuple<int, int> t;
        int (*fp) (int) = square;

        t = map(fp, 6, 8);

        cout <<get<0>(t) <<endl;
        cout <<get<1>(t) <<endl;

        return 0;
}

Which works. As long as all the arguments are the same type for map. If I change the main to use a slightly more general form:

 tuple<int, float> t;

 t = map(square, 6, 8.0f);

gcc 4.4 reports:

In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
error: no matching function for call to ‘map(<unresolved overloaded function type>, int, float)’

Any ideas how to make this work?

Answer 1

First, you can't pass around an unresolved function template as a pointer (or template parameter), you can only pass around instances of it. What that means is that your template's first argument is being passed as an int (*)(int) in this example, and it cannot call the float (*)(float) instantiation. I'm not sure of the best way to fix that, but anyway it's not technically what you asked about.

I don't have a compiler to test this on, but I think if you use std::function to infer the types that the function you are passing in wants, you might be able to cast the parameters to the function. Like this:

template<typename T, typename Ts...>
tuple<Ts...> map(std::function<T (T)> const &f, Ts... args) {
    return make_tuple(static_cast<Ts>(f(static_cast<T>(args)))...);
}

See, I think you need to cast both the parameter (as a T) and the return type (as a Ts) for the function since it seems some implicit conversion rules are not working inside this template.

If my syntax doesn't work (it probably doesn't, the ...s are tricky when you don't have a compiler for them), it might be possible that you could rewrite this as a much more verbose function which unpacks each Ts before calling the function, and then builds up a tuple as it goes. I'm not sure if that is really necessary, but my feeling is that compiler support for all of the ... unpacking is a little spotty right now, so even if you come up with something that should work, I wouldn't be surprised if your compiler couldn't handle it.